Full text of "Sportfishery Information for Managing Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve: Volume 2, A Survey of Fishing License Holders Entering Glacier Bay on Private Vessel Permits"

See other formats

Sportfishery Information for Managing
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve

Volume 2

A Survey of Fishing License Holders Entering Glacier Bay on
Private Vessel Permits

Final Report to the National Park Service
April 2005

Sarah R. Osterhoudt

Jane E. Swanson

Darryll R. Johnson

Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit

National Park Service

University of Washington, Box 352100

Seattle, Washington 98195-2100

Jason R. Gasper

Vince F. Gallucci

Marc M. Miller

School of Marine Affairs

University of Washington, Box 355685

Seattle, Washington 98195-6715

Technical Report NPS/PWRUW/NRTR-2005-01

NPSD-132

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service, Pacific West Region

University of Washington

Seattle, Washington

PMIS Project Number 35700

Funding provided through the Natural Resources Preservation Program (NRPP), PNW CESU and Joint Venture

Cooperative Agreement CA9088A0008, Task Agreement UW-02-03.

The Protected Areas Social Research Unit is the applied social science program associated with the
NPS Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (NPS PNW CESU). This applied social
science program has been operating out of the UW College of Forest Resources since 1970 when it
was a part of the Cooperative Park Studies Unit (CPSU).

The NPS PNW CESU is located in the University of Washington (UW) College of Forest Resources.
The NPS PNW CESU is part of a larger partnership involving 7 federal agencies, 12 universities and
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The PNW CESU was created in October of 2000 to
provide research, technical assistance and education to enhance management of natural and cultural
resources on public lands in the Pacific Northwest.

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use by NPS, UW, or any of the other agencies or institutions associated with this research. The
contents of the report do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the NPS, UW, or any of the
agencies associated with this report.

Copies are available from the following:

Technical Information Center
Denver Service Center
National Park Service
P. O. Box 25287
Denver, CO 80225-0287
303-969-2130

Sportfishery Information for Managing
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve

Volume 2

A Survey of Fishing License Holders Entering Glacier Bay on
Private Vessel Permits

Final Report to the National Park Service
April 2005

Sarah R. Osterhoudt

Jane E. Swanson

Darryll R. Johnson

Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit

National Park Service

University of Washington, Box 352100

Seattle, Washington 98195-2100

Jason R. Gasper

Vince F. Gallucci

Marc M. Miller

School of Marine Affairs

University of Washington, Box 355685

Seattle, Washington 98195-6715

Technical Report NPS/PWRUW/NRTR-2005-01

NPSD-132

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service, Pacific West Region

University of Washington

Seattle, Washington

PMIS Project Number 35700

Funding provided through the Natural Resources Preservation Program (NRPP), PNW CESU and Joint Venture

Cooperative Agreement CA9088A0008, Task Agreement UW-02-03.

ill

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A mail and phone survey were used to collect information about licensed anglers aboard
private vessels in Glacier Bay proper. General demographic and fishing behavior data were collected
from first visit of the season licensed anglers contacted at the Bartlett Cove Visitor Information
Station (VIS). Fishing behavior data were collected for subsequent visits of the season by contacting
boat captains and asking them to report for their whole party. No demographic data were collected in
the phone survey as data for these respondents were collected in the mail survey on their first visit of
the season.

The estimates reported here were based on voluntary, self-report surveys for which none of
the data were validated by independent observation. Although there was no reason to suspect
intentional misreporting, independent validation of the data would have provided greater confidence
in the estimates. Furthermore, it was initially believed that the vast majority of First trip licensed
anglers would enter the VIS, however this was not the case. Because data were not collected to
determine who was missed and if they differed in significant ways, the data presented here may not
be representative of the intended population. Future research can be designed to address these issues
while still using survey methodology to collect the necessary data.

Visitor characteristics

Licensed anglers on their first visit of the season were more likely to be male (81%), over 50
years of age (60%), and non-Alaskan U.S. residents (73%). Only 67% of licensed anglers fished in
Glacier Bay proper during their First visit of the season. For 60% of respondents, the trip during which
they were contacted was their First Fishing trip to GLBA in the past three years. Respondents were
quite varied in their level of fishing experience with nearly 40% of respondents reporting fishing 1 1
or more days per year. The degree to which respondents were serious about sport Fishing also varied
across the 7-point rating scale (l=not at all serious to 7=very serious) with between 10% and 20% of
respondents circling each of the seven rating options. Respondents who fished in Glacier Bay proper
during their First trip reported being more serious about sport Fishing than respondents who did not
fish (Average serious rating = 4.3 vs. 3.2, respectively).

The importance of taking home fish caught also varied by whether respondents fished or not
in Glacier Bay proper during their first trip. The average importance rating for respondents who
fished in Glacier Bay proper was 3.6 (l=Not at all important, 7=Extremely important), however 26%
of them indicated that it was not at all important to bring home fish caught. The average importance
rating for respondents who did not fish in Glacier Bay proper was 1 .7, with 72% of them indicating it

was not at all important to bring home fish caught. The remaining 28% of respondents were people
who fished outside of Glacier Bay proper during their first trip of the season.

Trip length and time spent fishing

On average, first trip of the season licensed anglers spent 4.5 days in Glacier Bay proper.
About 9% of first trip respondents spent more than 7 days and thus required an extension to their
original permit. Of the 67% of first trip licensed anglers who fished in Glacier Bay proper during their
trip, 49% fished one day (33% of all respondents) and 30% fished two days (21% of all respondents).
The average number of days fished in Glacier Bay proper for first trip licensed anglers who fished
was 1 .8 days (1 .2 days for all respondents). Of first trip licensed anglers who fished, the average total
hours fished was 5 and 70% spent 4 hours or less in total fishing — a relatively small portion of total
trip time. Thus, fishing was not a primary activity for many of these first trip licensed anglers.

The central portion of Glacier Bay proper just below the East and West arms and the lower
portion of the West arm were the most commonly fished areas by first trip licensed anglers in 2003
and 2002. These areas are traveled for sightseeing as well and thus, this finding was consistent with
the proposition that fishing was not a primary activity for many first trip anglers. Fishing in
freshwaters was rare with no one fishing them during 2003 and only five people in 2002.

For parties on subsequent trips, fishing was more prevalent. On average the total number of
hours fished was 5.3 per trip, and most of these trips were one day long. Thus fishing comprised a
much larger component of each trip and was a higher priority for people on subsequent trips than for
those on a first trip of the season. As subsequent trip licensed anglers were primarily local residents,
fishing as a component of private boater experience appears to be substantially more important for
local than non-local visitors.

Catch and harvest data for first and subsequent trips during 2003

Halibut was the preferred species for anglers on first and subsequent trips during 2003.
Although licensed anglers on subsequent trips to Glacier Bay proper were more likely to target
halibut than licensed anglers on first trips of the season, the percent of halibut caught that was
harvested for each group was comparable (subsequent: 52.5% vs. first: 53.1%). Review of the catch
(CPUE) and harvest (HPUE) rates for the two groups however showed that anglers on subsequent
trips reported lower catch and harvest rates for halibut than anglers on first trips. These results were
surprising as subsequent trip anglers were primarily local Alaskan residents who would be expected
to exhibit as good or better fishing success than non-Alaskan U.S. residents who comprised almost
75% of first trip anglers.

Although salmon was the distant second species targeted, salmonids were targeted more often
by first trip parties than subsequent trip parties (36% vs. 26%). Subsequent trip anglers exhibited
higher catch (0.96 vs. 0.59 fish/rod-hr.) and harvest (0.59 vs. 0.23 fish/rod-hr.) rates than first trip
anglers. However, subsequent trip anglers harvested a lower percentage of salmonids than first trip
anglers (40% vs. 69%).

An estimated total of 1,740 halibut and 31 1 salmonids were harvested in 2003. This
magnitude of recreational harvest was comparable to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's mail
survey estimate of 1,400-2,200 halibut and over 500 salmon for this same area (see
http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/Statewide/ParticipationAndHarvest/main.cfm). Although recreational
halibut harvest within Glacier Bay proper is not inconsequential, it likely represents a relatively small
portion of total harvest in comparison with Glacier Bay proper commercial harvest. An estimated
248,000 - 360,000 lbs of halibut was harvested annually from Glacier Bay proper by the commercial
fishery between 1998 and 2002 (International Pacific Halibut Commission unpublished data).
Recreational anglers most likely harvest less than 18% of total halibut harvest assuming an average
net weight of 30 lbs. for recreationally harvested halibut.

Catch and harvest data for first trip licensed anglers in 2002 and 2003

The 2002 pre-test covered only a portion of the time period covered by the 2003 survey.
Comparisons for the two years were made by selecting 2003 data for the same time period as the
2002 pre-test or by comparing angler population estimates calculated for the season.

The primary finding from these comparisons was the year-to-year variability in catch and
harvest data. Angler population estimates for 2003 indicated a total of 998 halibut, 225 salmon, and
12 trout/char were caught by first trip of the season anglers. Estimates for 2002 indicated a total of
685 halibut, 377 salmon, and 213 trout char. Review of Alaska Department of Fish and Game data for
the Glacier Bay statistical area shows similar year-to-year variability in catch and harvest estimates
for the different species. Thus, it may be misleading to interpret any one year's data as being
representative or typical of other years. Obtaining estimates for additional years would provide
information about the degree of year-to-year variability for licensed anglers who enter on private
vessel permits.

Although fish species targeted varied from year-to-year, the percent offish caught that were
harvested in 2002 and 2003 were comparable for halibut (2002 = 52.7% vs. 2003 = 53.1%) and
salmon (2002 = 69.5% vs. 2003 = 69.3%). In both years, few other bottom fish were kept.

Vlll

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii

PREFACE xv

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background 1

The GLBA Boating Survey 1

About private vessel permits 2

1 .2 Objectives 3

1.3 Survey Design and Questionnaire Development 3

2002 Pre-test 4

1.4 Visitor Contact Procedures and Response Rates 5

First Trip This Season Visitors: On-site and Mail-back Questionnaires 6

Subsequent Trip Visitors: Phone Survey 8

1.5 Statistical Considerations 9

1 .6 Limitations 9

1.7 Accuracy of the Sample 11

1.8 Conventions Followed in This Report 12

2. VISITOR PROFILE 15

Highlights 15

2.1 Fishing during Trip 17

2.2 Permits and Fishing Licenses 18

2.3 Gender and Age 21

2.4 Residence 25

2.5 Number of Fishing Trips in Glacier Bay in the Last Three Years 26

2.6 Importance to Take Home Fish 27

2.7 Seriousness about Sport Fishing 29

2.8 Fishing Experience 31

2.9 Group Characteristics 32

Boating Party Size 32

Number of People in Party with Alaska Fishing Licenses 33

Group Type 34

Party Members under the Age of 18 35

3. TRIP CHARACTERISTICS AND EXPERIENCE 37

Highlights 37

3.1 Fishing during Trip and Number of Days Fished 39

3.2 Number of People in Party who Fished 41

3.3 Month of Trip 42

3.4 Length of Trip 43

3.5 Willingness to Recommend Others Fish in GLBA 44

4. FISHING EFFORT, CATCH, AND HARVEST: MAIL-BACK QUESTIONNAIRE
49

Highlights 49

4.1 General Notes on Fishing Data 51

4.2 Daily Fishing Reports 51

4.3 Fishing Locations 54

4.4 Species Targeted 56

4.5 Fishing Effort Overall and by Species 58

4.6 Average Targeted Catch and Harvest per Person by Species 61

4.7 Harvest (HPUE) and Catch (CPUE) Rates by Species' Groupings 63

4.8 Expanded Catch, and Harvest Estimates 65

Estimate of Boater/Angler Population Size for 2003 Survey Period 65

Estimate of Boater/Angler Population Size for 2002 Survey Period 66

Expanded Catch and Harvest Estimates for Angler Population 67

5. FISHING EFFORT, CATCH AND HARVEST: PHONE SURVEY 71

Highlights 71

5.1 General Notes on Phone Survey 73

5.2 Parties with at Least One Person Who Fished in Glacier Bay 74

5.3 Fishing Activity by Species 75

5.4 Fishing Effort 76

5.5 Average Targeted Catch and Harvest per Party by Species 78

5.6 Harvest (HPUE) and Catch (CPUE) Rates by Species 79

5.7 Expanded Catch and Harvest Estimates 80

Estimate of Boater/Angler Population Size for 2003 Survey Period 80

Expanded Catch and Harvest Estimates for Angler Population 87

6. TOTAL CATCH AND HARVEST ESTIMATES FOR PRIVATE VESSEL
ANGLERS WITHIN GLACIER BAY PROPER 83

7. CONCLUSIONS 85

Prevalence of Fishing and Importance to Trip 85

Fishing Catch and Harvest 85

Summary 87

REFERENCES 89

APPENDIX A: CONTACT SHEET AND MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE 91

APPENDIX B: PHONE SURVEY SCRIPT Ill

APPENDIX C: MAP OF GLACIER BAY 115

APPENDIX D: HOW TO USE THIS REPORT 117

Xll

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thank you to the Margaret Hazen and the VIS staff for administering the boating
survey and to Wayne Howell and Sue Hazlett for their review of the report. We
greatly appreciated Chad Soiseth's review of the survey procedures and report
along with being available to answer any questions we had. Protected Area Social
Research Unit employees who contributed to the success of this project include
Adam Neel, Brandon Hinton, and Mark Vande Kamp.

Xlll

XIV

PREFACE

This document reports the results of the survey of boaters entering Glacier Bay

National Park with private vessel permits. The research was proposed and funded
by Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. The general purpose of the research
was to address recreational fishing information needs by 1) collecting fishing effort,
location, catch and harvest information for visitors aboard private vessels in Glacier
Bay Proper, and 2) collecting social data to describe these visitors and their attitudes
toward recreational fishing. The questions used in the Glacier Bay National Park
Boating Survey are in the text of the report. However, readers may benefit by
reviewing the survey in order to familiarize themselves with the survey items and the
format in which they were originally presented. It is anticipated that this report will
be used primarily as a reference document, and therefore, depending on each
readers' objective, this report may be approached in very different ways. Readers
not familiar with statistical analysis of survey data are encouraged to refer to
Appendix D, "How to Use This Report." The detailed information reported here
should prove useful to managers in many ways, including some that will only
become evident in the future.

XVI

1. Introduction
1.1 Background

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve (GLBA) offers visitors a unique recreational
setting. Marine waters account for nearly one-fifth of the unit's area and no dry land is more
than 30 miles from a coastline. More than 200 species of fish are found in GLBA waters, and
there are many good fishing opportunities for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis),
salmon (Oncorhynchus species) and other species. Only those visitors who enter GLBA
aboard private vessels or charter vessels have the opportunity to fish in park waters. These
visitors account for about 5,000 of the more than 350,000 people who visit GLBA each year.

Overall, little data on the fishing activity in GLBA waters are available. The Alaska
Department of Fish and Game conducts a mail survey that provides annual estimates of
fishing effort, catch, and harvest for the Glacier Bay statistical area. The National Park
Service (NPS) requires charter vessel operators to report their party's fishing effort, catch,
and harvest as part of their charter concessions permit. To date, very limited information on
the fishing activities of anglers aboard private vessels within Glacier Bay proper exists.
(Glacier Bay proper is the area north of a line drawn from Point Gustavus to Point Carolus,
as shown in Appendix C).

The GLBA Boating Survey

The 2003 Glacier Bay National Park Boating survey (a.k.a. boating survey) was
designed to provide NPS staff and managers with information on the fishing activities of
licensed anglers aboard private vessels within Glacier Bay proper. The boating survey was
administered by the Protected Area Social Research Unit (PASRU) of the University of
Washington. The study was proposed and funded by the National Park Service (NPS).

The boating survey was one component of a three-part research project investigating
recreational fishing effort, catch, and harvest in GLBA waters. The second component of the
project (Gasper et al. 2005) was to develop and administer a creel survey of charter and
private anglers from Gustavus and Elfin Cove fishing waters in Cross Sound and Icy Strait
(including GLBA). The results of this research in included in Volume 1 of this report. The
third component involved developing and conducting a survey exploring interactions

between Gustavus charter captains and their clients regarding fishing behaviors (Gasper
2004). The University of Washington, School of Marine Affairs (UWSMA) completed the
second and third study components.

Taken together, these parts can be used 1) to initiate a program to obtain data from
GLBA visitors; 2) to evaluate the reliability of GLBA's existing charter logbook program;
and 3) to provide guidance for future efforts by the NPS to monitor recreational fishing
activities.

About Private Vessel Permits

Because the boating survey population was licensed anglers entering on private vessel
permits and the permit system influenced the methods chosen, a general overview of the
permit system is presented. All parties entering Glacier Bay proper between June 1 and
August 31 on a private vessel are required to obtain a no-fee permit from the park. Private
vessel permits are valid for 7 consecutive days within the bay proper. Captains may request
an extension permit for an additional 7 days, provided space is available. A private boater
may apply for and hold up to 2 permits at one time. However, second private vessel permits
are not issued during the peak boater use period between June 1 1 and August 2.

Only a limited number of private vessel permits are available, as a total of no more
than 25 private motor vessels are permitted in Glacier Bay proper on any given day. Three of
these 25 permits are reserved for local operators of private vessels1. Local permits are valid
for any 7 use days, not necessarily consecutive ones. Between June 1 and August 31, the park
allocates the number of daily vessel entries within Glacier Bay proper as follows:

June 1 - June 10: 3 entries per day

June 1 1 - Aug. 2: 6 entries per day

Aug. 3 - Aug. 15: 5 entries per day

Aug. 16- Aug. 31: 3 entries per day
All captains entering GLBA on a private vessel permit are required to notify park
headquarters by telephone or marine band radio when entering the bay proper. Those
captains on their first visit of the season are required to attend a boater orientation at the

1 These local permits are restricted to residents of the Icy Straits/Cross Sound area, including the communities
of Ellin Cove, Excursion Inlet. Gustavus. Hoonah, and Pelican.

Visitor Information Station (VIS) in Bartlett Cove. On subsequent visits, captains need not
stop at the VIS.

1.2 Objectives

The primary objective of the boating survey was to estimate the recreational fishing
effort, location, catch, and harvest for visitors with an Alaska fishing license aboard private
vessels in Glacier Bay proper. A secondary objective of the survey was to obtain social data
to describe the characteristics of these visitors taking private boat trips in Glacier Bay proper
and their attitudes toward recreational fishing.

1.3 Survey Design and Questionnaire Development

The boating survey was designed to collect fishing and social information from
visitors with an Alaska fishing license entering Glacier Bay proper on a private vessel permit.
Although all visitors with a private vessel permit must contact the VIS when they enter
Glacier Bay proper, only those captains entering the bay on the first visit of the season are
required to stop at the VIS. Therefore, the survey design contained two components: one for
"first trip this season" visitors who stop at the VIS and a second for subsequent trip visitors
who radioed or phoned the park. A trip was defined as entering or leaving Glacier Bay proper
for vessels not moored, rented, or put in at Bartlett Cove. For vessels moored, rented or put in
at Bartlett Cove, a trip was defined as leaving and returning to Bartlett Cover. Our unit
designed the survey procedures and questionnaires in cooperation with UWSMA and GLBA
fisheries biologists.

The "first trip this season" component of the study consisted of an on-site and a mail-
back questionnaire (see Appendix A) that were distributed to all visitors with an Alaska
fishing license entering the bay proper on their first visit of the season to the park aboard a
private vessel. The brief on-site questionnaire (also called a contact sheet) asked respondents
for general party information (e.g., size, number with fishing licenses, group type) and
mailing information. Visitors were asked to complete the contact sheet and return it to the
VIS staff before beginning their trip. The more in-depth mail-back questionnaire consisted of
three sections. First, a brief background section to be completed at the start of their trip
included questions asking when visitors entered the park, prior fishing history in GLBA, and

fishing attitudes questions. Second, daily fishing reports that gathered fishing effort, catch,
and harvest data by species and location were to be completed daily during the trip. Third, a
brief post-trip section that asked about number of days and number of people who fished,
personal fishing history, and willingness to recommend fishing in Glacier Bay. Visitors were
encouraged to promptly complete the fishing reports and return the completed questionnaires
by mail at the end of their visit to GLB A.

The "subsequent trip" component of the study was a telephone survey (see Appendix
B) of party captains who entered Glacier Bay proper on private vessels on their second or
later visit of the season. These captains entered the park primarily on local permits."" Because
most captains should have been contacted at the VIS on their first trip and asked to complete
an on-site and a mail-back questionnaire, the telephone survey gathered only information on
fishing effort, catch, and harvest data by species and location for the additional visit(s). The
phone survey asked respondents to report the fishing information of his or her entire boating
party. This methodology was used because the park had contact information for the party
captains but not for the other members of the party. This method was consistent with the
creel survey of charter captains conducted by UWSMA that also had captains report for the
entire fishing party.

2002 P re-test

A pre-test of the boater survey was conducted between July 9, 2002 and August 31,
2002. For the pre-test, the VIS staff collected names and mailing information for visitors with
Alaska fishing licenses entering for the first time that season aboard private vessels who
agreed to participate in the study. This information was sent to PASRU staff in Seattle to use
in mailing questionnaires to visitors who agreed to participate about one week after they
entered Glacier Bay proper. Three additional follow-up mailings were sent, if a completed
survey was not received.

The pre-test provided the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of these methods
including 1) whether VIS staff could effectively distribute the survey, 2) respondents' ability
to complete the more complex daily fishing reports, and 3) if mailing the questionnaire after

" As local residents can also obtain general permits, it was possible that some entered on a general permit after
having already visited the park on a local permit.

the trip affected recall or reduced response rates. Results of the pre-test suggested that only
minor revisions in the mail-back questionnaire were necessary, including altering the order of
some questions and slightly changing the daily fishing reports. Pre-test results also suggested
that 1) a dedicated survey worker would better ensure contacting all eligible parties, although
budget restrictions prevented this from occurring, 2) distributing the mail survey on-site
might increase the response rate of 66% because some parties took extended, month-long
trips, and 3) including some general demographic and party related questions as part of the
contact questionnaire would allow for assessment of potential non-response biases. As most
national park surveys have response rates over 70%, this information was particularly
important given the lower than usual response rate. The survey materials were revised
accordingly and sent to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval in
April 2003.

Because the revisions of the 2002 questionnaire for 2003 had no effect on question
wording, the data obtained by the two questionnaires were comparable. However, the two
surveys covered different time periods, so seasonal estimates based on the 2003 mail-back
questionnaire data were calculated to reflect approximately the same time period as the 2002
data (July 1 to Aug 31 versus July 9 to Aug 31). These estimates are referred to as "partial
2003" data. Both the partial 2003 and complete 2003 data are presented for selected fishing
variables.

1.4 Visitor Contact Procedures and Response Rates

The two different components of the survey represent different populations. First, the
population represented by the on-site and mail-back questionnaires (first-trip-this season
visitors) included all boaters over age 17 with an Alaska fishing license who entered Glacier
Bay proper aboard a private vessel for a first visit of the season between June 1, 2003 and
September 15, 2003. The population represented by the telephone survey (subsequent trip
visitors) included all boating parties who entered Glacier Bay proper with a private vessel
permit on second or later visits of the season between June 1, 2003 and September 15, 2003.
Respondents to the phone survey were the vessel captains who reported data for the entire
boating party.

First Trip This Season Visitors: On-site and Mail-back Questionnaires

All captains entering Glacier Bay proper on a private vessel permit are required to
participate in an orientation program at the VIS the first time they enter the park each season.
Because park staff believed in most cases everyone in the boating party comes to the VIS
when the captain goes through orientation, the VIS became the point of contact for this
population. All visitors from a private vessel over the age of 17 with an Alaska fishing
license that entered the VIS during the survey period were approached by VIS staff and
asked to participate in the survey.

Those agreeing to participate were given a survey packet that included: the on-site
questionnaire, the mail-back questionnaire, a map of the bay proper (see Appendix C), a
pencil, and a pre-addressed, stamped return envelope. Participants were asked to complete
the on-site questionnaire (also called a contact sheet) before leaving the VIS and return it to
the VIS staff. Participants were also asked to complete the mail-back questionnaire during
their trip and mail it back upon leaving GLBA. The UWSMA graduate student oversaw the
administration of the surveys by VIS staff and faxed the completed contact sheets to PASRU
staff in Seattle who administered the follow-up mailings. Thank you/reminder letters were
sent to all participants within two weeks of initial contact; the next reminder letter, which
contained another survey packet, was mailed two weeks after that if a completed
questionnaire had not been returned. A final third thank you reminder letter was mailed six
weeks after participants were first approached if no questionnaire was returned.

Contact rates: Parties. The park maintains a vessel entry database, and this
information was compared with our data to determine our success in contacting first trip this
season visitors. A query of the park's vessel entry database for the number of private vessels
that entered Glacier Bay between June 1 and August 31, 2003 indicated a total of 356 vessels
entered Glacier Bay proper on private vessel permits: 284 of these parties had general (non-
local) permits and 72 had local permits. Review of the returned contact sheets indicated that
1 10 parties on a first trip this season had one or more members return a contact sheet.
Review of the Glacier Bay National Park Captain Orientation Signature Sheet that was
modified to ask captains to report the number of licensed anglers on their vessel indicated 52
parties reported no licensed anglers and thus were excluded from this survey. Because
captains did not fully complete this orientation sheet, there were many vessels for which the

number of licensed anglers was missing and thus, 52 parties that did not fish may be an
underestimate. If total parties are adjusted to reflect these parties that should not be included
in the survey, the contact rate for parties was 36.1% (1 10 out of 304). Refusal rates were not
directly tracked, but reports by VIS staff to the UWSMA graduate student suggested that
refusals were infrequent (less than 10% of licensed anglers).

There are several possible explanations for this low party contact rate; any one or
combination thereof may be occurring. First, a portion of the non-contacted parties represent
parties that had no one with Alaska fishing licenses and this information was not collected
sufficiently well to provide an accurate estimate. Second, the VIS staff may not have
contacted as many parties as they thought. The VIS can be extremely busy at times as the
limited staff is responsible for assisting visitors seeking information or permits (including
backcountry and boating), manning the radio, and addressing any unforeseen emergency
situations. As originally expected to be minimal, there was no tracking of parties that were
not contacted during these rush periods. It was also possible that VIS staff varied in their
effectiveness in administering the survey and getting visitors to participate. Third, it was
possible that there was a problem with the vessel entry database.

Contact rates: Visitors within parties. Information to calculate the percentage of
members within a contacted party was not directly collected. However, data collected about
party size and whether the respondent was the permit holder can provide some insight to this
question. Given that the average party size was 4.4 people and less than one percent of
parties consisted of only one person, if most members of a party were contacted, then fewer
permit holders should have been contacted than non-permit holders. Because 63% of
respondents were permit holders, many other party members apparently 1) did not enter the
VIS, 2) did not approach the VIS counter, or 3) were overlooked by VIS staff.

If non-permit holders differ from permit holders in their fishing behavior, then
undersampling non-permit holders could affect fishing estimates. Analyses comparing
permit-holders and non-permit holders found no significant differences. Thus, although our
data represent considerably fewer respondents than originally expected, there was no bias
due to permit holder status.

Response rates. Response rate is the percentage of people who agreed to participate
that returned the mail survey. A total of 164 visitors completed a contact sheet. Of those,

four addresses were incomplete and four addresses were incorrect or no longer valid,
resulting in 156 good addresses. A total of 98 surveys were returned for a response rate of
62.8%.

The response rate of 62.8% was lower than the 66.4% obtained for the pre-test in the
summer of 2002, despite procedural changes aimed to improve response. One possible
explanation is that people were likely to complete and return the mail questionnaire during
the pre-test because of the appeal for feedback on the questionnaire. Historically, our unit has
observed higher response rates during pre-tests. A second possible explanation is that visitors
who visited Glacier Bay proper on a private vessel permit both during the summer of 2002
and in the summer of 2003 would have potentially been contacted both years to participate in
the boater survey. Such visitors may have been less willing to complete the mail-back
questionnaire a second time. Third, it was also possible that VIS staff in 2002 were slightly
more effective than VIS staff in 2003 in conveying the importance of completing and
returning the survey.

The response rate was also somewhat lower than the usual rate seen for national park
visitor surveys. One possible reason for this lower return could be that people were on
extended trips, and did not receive our follow-up mailings until after the survey period was
closed. A second possible reason was that visitors who did not fish felt they did not need to
return the survey, although the instructions and follow-up letters emphasized that this was not
the case. A third possible reason was that some respondents may have believed that filling in
the daily fishing chart was an involved process, even though it actually took only a few
minutes to complete. A fourth possible reason was that most of our NPS surveys have one or
more survey workers hired to contact visitors. The mere presence of such workers may cause
visitors to feel that the survey is of higher importance than surveys administered by park
staff.

Subsequent Trip Visitors: Phone Survey

All boat captains who entered Glacier Bay proper on a private vessel permit on
second or later visits between June 1, 2003 and September 15, 2003 were contacted and
asked to participate in a phone survey. Although these captains were not required to stop at
the VIS, they were required to notify park headquarters by telephone or marine band radio

■5

when they entered the bay proper. At this time, park staff recorded key information into
their data base including captains' names, permit numbers, and phone numbers. This contact
information was provided by the park to the UWSMA graduate student. The UWSMA
graduate student called these captains at home within ten days of their entry into the park and
asked them to participate in a 10-minute phone survey (see Appendix B). Of the 115
captains' names4 and phone numbers provided by the park, 5 were no longer in service. Of
the remaining 1 10 captains, the graduate student was able to contact 86 — all who agreed to
participate in the phone survey. The final response rate was 78.2%.

1.5 Statistical Considerations

Readers not familiar with statistical analyses of survey data are encouraged to refer to
Appendix D, "How to Use this Report". Consistent with convention, statistical significance
was set at the .05 level for analyses included in this report. Statistical tests with /^-values
equal to or less than .05 are interpreted as indicating effects that are reliable or real (observed
effects have a 5% or less probability of being due to chance alone). Although the analyses
highlight statistically significant effects, they are unable to reveal whether effects have
important practical implications. Some effects that fall just short of the .05 significance level
may have large practical implications while other effects with high statistical significance
may have no practical implications. Thus, it is important to consider both the statistical
significance and the practical implications of the data.

1.6 Limitations

The boating survey has several general limitations that should be kept in mind when
interpreting the data. In all surveys, it is assumed that respondents provide accurate and
honest answers to the questions asked. Although it was not immediately apparent that
respondents had any particular motivation to misrepresent data in a way that biases the
results, the current design did not provide any means to validate respondents' fishing reports.

The captains were required to attend the boater orientation at the VIS before their first trip, and should have
therefore previously received and completed a contact sheet and a mail-back questionnaire.
4 Because some permit holders take more than one subsequent trip into the park, the 1 15 captains' names do not
represent 1 15 unique names. They do represent the captains' names for 115 unique trips to the park. If the
same person was the captain for multiple trips, that person was called after each trip and asked to report fishing
data for that trip.

Second, the data represent visitor attitudes and opinions at a particular point in time (i.e., the
time of the survey) and changes can occur at any time. Third, although efforts were made by
the VIS personnel to contact every potentially eligible visitor, some visitors were not
contacted. Although there was no way to assess whether the people who were not contacted
differed in any systematic way from those who were contacted, we have no reason to believe
that these people would differ in any systematic way that would affect the results of this
survey. Fourth, although the survey and all correspondence emphasized the need for people
who did not fish to return the survey, it was possible that people who did not fish were less
likely to return the survey. There was no way to determine if this was indeed the case. Fifth,
people's memories are imperfect and thus answers to the phone survey conducted several
days after the trip may be inaccurate. The extent to which recall for this type of information
is affected is unknown, and it may vary depending on the type of information requested. For
example, people are probably better at remembering how many of each species of fish they
kept than remembering exactly where they were when they caught them.

Specific limitations of the boating survey are also noted in the body of the report.
Most of these are due to the manner in which individual questions were interpreted or are
otherwise restricted to a particular aspect of the survey. There are also limitations that
revolve around the issue of non-response (i.e., possible bias in the sample due to differences
between the visitors who completed the questionnaires and those who didn't). Potential
limitations associated with non-response are discussed below.

Non-response. It is mathematically possible that the people who responded to the survey
differed significantly from the people who did not respond and therefore the data do not
accurately represent the population. For the first component of the study, data from the
contact sheet completed at the GLBA visitor center provided an opportunity to evaluate
possible differences between respondents and non-respondents of the mail-back
questionnaire. Possible differences were assessed using statistical tests (e.g., Chi-square tests
and /-tests) that determined whether response rates were independent of a variety of
characteristics.

Tests assessing possible non-response bias were focused on two categories of
characteristics. The first category was visitor characteristics and included gender, age,
residence, and whether the visitor was the permit holder for the group. The second category

was group characteristics and included the number of visitors in the party, the type of visitor
group (i.e., family, friends, etc.), whether the group included members under age 18, and how
many people in the group had Alaska fishing licenses.

For all the characteristics listed above, statistically significant differences in response
rates were found only for visitor age. Respondents who returned both the mail-back
questionnaire and the contact sheet averaged 55 years of age, whereas those who only
returned the contact sheet averaged 53 years of age, r( 156) = -2.29, p = .020. Thus, the non-
response bias that we observed changed our estimate of boater survey respondents' average
age by 2 years or 4%. Response differences by age are very common in this type of survey
with older people being more likely to respond than younger people; similar patterns have
been observed in previous national park surveys.

Possible effects due to age were examined on all variables. Only residence varied by
age, F(3, 154) = 4.12 p = .008. Post hoc Tukey tests revealed that on average non-U. S.
visitors to the park were younger (43 years) than non-Alaskan U.S. visitors (54 years). No
other age differences between the four residence groups (local Alaskan residents, non-local
Alaskan residents, non-Alaskan U.S. residents, and non-U. S. residents) were significant.
Given the large number of tests performed, this observed effect might be due to chance
alone. In fact, the effect is not significant when the Bonferroni correction' for multiple
comparisons is used. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that undetected examples of
non-response bias may have important effects on the results of the boater mail survey, effects
smaller than those associated with age are not large enough to alter the representativeness of
the sample in important ways.

No data were available to examine non-response bias for the phone survey.

1. 7 Accuracy of the Sample

As noted earlier, two populations are represented by the different components of the
survey: 1) respondents to the onsite/mail-back questionnaire represent all visitors over age 17
with an Alaska fishing license entering the bay proper with a private vessel permit on the first

The Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons corrects for the increased likelihood of obtaining a
significant result when many related comparisons are made. The per comparison significance level is obtained
by taking .05 divided by the number of comparisons.

visit of the season between June 1 and September 15, 2003, and 2) respondents to the
telephone survey represent all parties entering the bay proper with a private vessel permit on
their second or later visit of the season between June 1 and September 15, 2003.

Although a census of both populations was attempted, response rates were
sufficiently low that confidence intervals for the smallest and largest sample were computed
assuming a sample of more than 10% from a finite population. For the on-site/mail-back
questionnaire, assuming a random sample and questions of the yes/no type in which the true
occurrences of these values in the population are 50%/50%, the data from the smallest
sample in this survey (the 62 mail-back questionnaire respondents who fished) can be
generalized to the population of all visitors over the age of 17 entering the bay proper with a
private vessel permit on the first visit between June 1 and September 15, 2003 with a 95
percent assurance that the obtained or observed percentages to any item will vary no more
than ± 0.20 percent. For the largest sample (the 158 completing the contact sheet) the same
confidence interval is ± 0.05 percent.

For the telephone survey, assuming a random sample and questions of the yes/no type
in which the true occurrences of these values in the population are 50%/50%, the data from
the smallest sample in this survey (the 17 parties that fished for salmon) can be generalized to
the population of all parties entering the bay proper with a private vessel permit on the
second or later visit between June 1 and September 15, 2003 with a 95 percent assurance that
the obtained or observed percentages to any item will vary no more than ± 1.30 percent. For
the largest sample (the 86 captains who participated in the phone survey) the same
confidence interval is ± 0.06 percent.

1.8 Conventions Followed in This Report

As mentioned previously, there were two questionnaires (on-site and mail-back) and a
telephone survey (Appendices A and B). It is recommended that these instruments be
reviewed before reading the body of this report. Throughout the body of this report, each
question is presented as it appeared on the questionnaire with corresponding graphs, tables,
and/or analyses following it. The questionnaire and question number used to collect the data
reported in each chart are noted in the chart titles. The number of respondents (n) whose data
are represented in each chart is also reported, generally at the bottom of the chart. The

maximum number of respondents was 158 for the contact sheet and 86 for the phone survey.
When applicable, standard deviation (SD) and average (M) values are also included. When a
chart reports data for a subset of respondents (e.g. Figure 3.3: Number of days fished for
people who fished during their trip), a note describes the sub-sample included in the chart.
All statistical abbreviations and acronyms used in the body of the report are included in
Appendix D.

Highlights are presented at the beginning of each chapter. A bulleted list is used when the
chapter reports primarily descriptive data. Readers are encouraged to review the supporting
figures or analyses referenced in the highlights.

Missing data for up to 10% of respondents to a particular question are generally not
considered likely to alter the interpretation of that question. Throughout this report, few
questions had more than 10% missing data. Exceptions are noted in the text and charts.

It is neither possible nor desirable that this report describes all possible analyses of the
data collected by the survey, or even all interpretations that are potentially of interest to
GLBA managers. However, some analyses that may be of interest are briefly noted
throughout this report, and described for potential future exploration. Park managers and
planners are encouraged to think creatively about potential applications of the data.

2. Visitor Profile

Boaters over age 17 with an Alaska fishing license who entered GLBA on their first visit of
the 2003 season were asked a variety of demographic questions. The information they
provided is used here to describe and profile these visitors.

Highlights

• Sixty percent of respondents were between the ages of 50 and 69 with the average age
being 52.9 years. Males comprised 81% of respondents. This high percentage of
males was consistent with other research examining gender of licensed anglers. Of
respondents, 72.8% were non-Alaskan U.S. residents, 1 1.4% local Alaskan residents,
and 10.8% non-U. S. residents.

• Boating parties ranged in size from 1 to over 10 with the most common boating party
size being 4 (34% of respondents) and the average boating size being 4.4. Traveling
with family was the most common group type (42.3%) followed by traveling with
family and friends (29.5%) and friends (19.9%). Although a large number of
respondents traveled with family, only 26.9% reported having party members under
the age of 18 in their party. These findings along with the age data suggested that
parties with families were more likely to be comprised of adults (people over age 18)
than adults and young children.

• Not all party members had Alaska fishing licenses. The average number of people
with Alaska fishing licenses in respondents' boating party was 2.9 whereas the
average party size was 4.4. The survey procedures were designed to contact only
people with fishing licenses, and consistent with this procedure, all respondents
reported having an Alaska fishing license.

• The breakout of resident and non-resident Alaska fishing licenses was consistent with
respondents' residence with 83.9% of respondents possessing a non-resident Alaska
fishing license. Although all respondents had licenses, only 67% of them fished in
Glacier Bay proper during their trip.

• For 60.2% of respondents, the trip during which they were contacted was the first
fishing trip to GLBA in the past three years. For 28.0% of respondents, they had

never taken a fishing trip in GLBA including the trip in which they were contacted. It
is possible that respondents had taken non-fishing trips to GLBA in the past three
years however, this information was not collected.

Respondents' fishing experience ranged from the current trip being their first time
fishing (1.1%) to fishing more than 20 days a year (25.6%) — the second most
common level of experience reported. The most common level of fishing experience
reported was fishing 3 to 10 days a year (32.2%).

Importance ratings of taking home fish caught during their trip differed significantly
depending on whether or not people fished in Glacier Bay proper. For respondents
who fished in Glacier Bay proper during their trip, the importance of taking home
some of the fish they caught during their trip was fairly equally distributed across the
rating scale6 although 25.8% of them indicated it was not at all important. In contrast,
72.4% of respondents who did not fish in Glacier Bay proper indicated it was not at
all important to take home some fish caught during the trip. There were about 10% of
respondents who did not fish in Glacier Bay proper that reported high levels of
importance to bringing home fish. Review of their questionnaires indicated that they
fished outside of the bay proper on their trips.

The degree to which visitors were serious about sport fishing also differed depending
on whether or not they fished in Glacier Bay proper. Respondents who fished in the
bay proper were on average more serious about sport fishing (M = 4.3) than
respondents who did not fish in the bay proper (M = 3.2).7 Review of the distribution
of responses for these two groups indicated that both groups contained very serious
and not at all serious sport fishing anglers although to different extents.

f' A score of lor 2 is considered not important, a score of 3, 4, or 5 is considered somewhat important and a
score of 6 or 7 is considered very important.

7 A score of lor 2 is considered not serious, a score of 3, 4, or 5 is considered somewhat serious and a score of 6
or 7 is considered very serious.

2. 1 Fishing during Trip

Visitors who fished may differ from visitors who did not fish in their personal and trip
characteristics. To determine if such differences existed, analyses comparing respondents
who fished with those who did not were conducted for research findings in this chapter and
throughout the report. Whenever significant effects of this variable were observed, they are
reported. When the variable of fishing behavior is not discussed, readers can assume that
analyses found no significant effect of the variable. For more detailed data regarding the
fishing activities of respondents, please see Section III and Section IV.

GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Post-Trip

2. During the boat trip in which you were contacted, on how many of the days that you were in Glacier
Bay did you personally fish?

NUMBER OF DAYS FISHED IN GLACIER BAY PROPER

FIGURE 2.1 : GLBA Mail-back questionnaire, Post-Trip Q-2.1
DID YOU PERSONALLY FISH DURING YOUR TRIP?

Did not fish
33.0%

n = 94

2.2 Permits and Fishing Licenses

Contact Sheet

Are you the permit holder for your party? (Check one box.)
□ YES-^ What is your permit number?

□ NO-^ Who is the Permit Holder? (Enter name of permit holder)
NAME OF PERMIT HOLDER

FIGURE 2.2: GLBA Boating Contact Sheet, Q1
IS RESPONDENT PERMIT HOLDER FOR PARTY?

No, not permit holder
37.4%

Yes, permit holder
62.6%

n = 155

Although only vessel captains were required to attend the orientation session at the
VIS, park staff believed that many of the other party members would also enter the VIS and
thus be contacted to participate in the boating survey. The above findings suggested that this
was not the case. Given that less than one percent of parties consisted only of the captain
(i.e., party size = 1) and the average party size was 4.4 (see Figure 2.15), we would expect to
have more non-permit holders than permit holders in the sample if all party members had

been contacted. This was not the observed pattern therefore, other party members may have
not entered the center to receive a survey packet.

It was possible that the under-sampling of non-permit holders could affect other study
variables. For example, permit holders may have differed from non-permit holders in their
fishing behavior (e.g., time spent fishing, number of fish they harvested, or their harvest per
unit effort). Analyses comparing the fishing behavior of permit holders and non-permit
holders found no significant differences on any of the fishing behavior variables.

GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Background

3. Do you have an Alaska Fishing license? (Circle one number.)

1 NO^> GO TO QUESTION 5

2 YES~> Which type of Alaska Fishing license do you have? (Circle one number.)

1 Resident fishing license

2 Non-resident fishing license

Consistent with survey procedures to contact boaters with Alaska Fishing licenses,
100% of respondents had an Alaskan fishing license (n= 93). The type of fishing license

(resident versus non-resident) respondents reported having is shown below.

FIGURE 2.3: GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Background, Q-3.2
TYPE OF ALASKAN FISHING LICENSE

Non-resident fishing
license
83.9%

Resident fishing license
16.1%

n = 87

x Although all 93 respondents had Alaska fishing licenses, only 87 of them answered the question indicating
whether their fishing licenses was a resident or non-resident license.

2.3 Gender and Age

Contact Sheet

6. Are you: □ FEMALE □ MALE

FIGURE 2.4: GLBA Boating Contact Sheet, Q6
GENDER

Female
19.0%

n = 158

Male
81.0%

GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Background

Are

: you: (Circle

Female
Male

one

number.)

FIGURE 2.5: GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Q-7
GENDER

Female
22.3%

n = 94

Male
77.7%

As seen in Figures 2.4 and 2.5, the percentage of females in the mail-back
questionnaire was higher than the percentage of females in the contact sheet because more
women than men returned the mail-back questionnaire. This difference however was not
significant (see Section 1.7). Approximately 80% of boaters with fishing licenses who
responded were male. This high percentage of males was consistent with data from 2003 that
found two-thirds of Alaska resident anglers are male (Romberg, 2003). Furthermore, 57% of
anglers in Alaska are non-residents and data from 2001 found that 74% of U.S. resident
anglers are male (USDOI, 2001 ). It would be incorrect to infer that 80% of all boating
visitors to GLBA proper were male as survey respondents were boaters with Alaska fishing
licenses.

Contact Sheet

7. What year were you born? 19

70 or more

60-69

<fl

50-59

40-49

30-39

20-29

FIGURE 2.6: GLBA Contact Sheet, Q-7
AGE

31.6%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS (n = 158)
Average age = 52.9 years, SD = 12.4

40%

GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Background

FIGURE 2.7: GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Background Q-8

AGE

70 or more

60-69

33.3%

50- 59

40-49

30-39

30.1%

10.8%

20-29 ■1.1%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS (n = 92)
Average age = 55.2 years, SD = 11.1

Age reported on the contact sheet provides the best estimate of age for the population
of interest. The differences in the distributions of age per the contact sheet and the mail-back
questionnaire reflect observed differences in response rates due to age (see Section 1.7).
Observed response rate differences in age were not found to have a significant effect on other
variables (see Section 1.7).

2.4 Residence

Contact Sheet

8. What is your home Zip Code? (If you live outside of the United States, please write the name of your
country.)

Residents were grouped into four residence location categories based on their zip
code. The first group was local Alaskan residents and included all visitors whose zip code
indicated they lived in Gustavus, Elfin Cove, Juneau, Auke Bay, or Hoonah. The second
group was non-local Alaskan residents and was comprised of all visitors with an Alaska zip
code not associated with the regions listed for local Alaskans. The third group was non-
Alaskan U.S. residents and included all U.S. zip codes outside the state of Alaska. The
fourth group was non-U. S. residents and was comprised of visitors who lived outside the
United States.

FIGURE 2.8: GLBA Contact Sheet, Q-8
PLACE OF RESIDENCE

Non-Alaskan U.S.
residents

Local Alaskan residents

Non-U. S. residents

Non-local Alaskan
residents

72.8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS (n = 158)

70%

80%

2.5 Number of Fishing Trips in Glacier Bay in the Last Three Years

GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Background

See Appendix A, page 2 of Boating
Survey for question.

FIGURE 2.9: GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Background Q-2
NUMBER OF FISHING TRIPS TAKEN IN GLACIER BAY IN THE PAST THREE YEARS

10 or more fishing trips 1 1.1%

5 to 9 fishing trips

2 to 4 fishing trips

1 fishing trip

No fishing trips

20% 30% 40% 50%
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS (n = 93)

60.2%

70%

Note that the question asks respondents how many fishing trips they had taken in
GLBA during the past three years. It is possible that respondents had taken other trips in
GLBA in the past three years that were not fishing trips.

2.6 Importance to Take Home Fish

GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Background

4. How important is it for you to take home some of the fish you catch during this trip? (Circle one
number)

I-

1 2 3

Not at all
important

4 5 6 7

Extremely
important

FIGURE 2.10: GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Background Q-4
IMPORTANCE TO TAKE HOME FISH CAUGHT

7- Extremely important

«J

r
o

1- Not at all important

50%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS (n = 92)
Average importance = 3.0, SD = 2.2

The importance of taking home fish caught during the trip differed significantly for
those who fished during their trip and those who did not, t(S9) = -4.33, p < .001 . On average,
people who fished during their visit placed greater importance on bringing home fish (M =
3.6) than those who did not fish (M = 1.7). There were six respondents who did not fish, but
indicated that it was important to take home the fish they caught. Review of these
individuals' questionnaires revealed that they wrote in their questionnaires that they fished
outside of Glacier Bay proper on the same trip.

FIGURE 2.11: GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Background Q-4
IMPORTANCE TO TAKE HOME FISH CAUGHT BY FISHING STATUS

7- Extremely important

<D
O

14.5%

0.0%

1 1 1 .3%

| 6.9%

•.

12.9%

| 3.4%

9.7%

0.0%

9.7%

0.0%

~]16.1%

1 17.2%

□ Fished (n=62)

■ Did not fish (n=29)

1- Not at all important

25.8%

72.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS

Fished: Average importance = 3.6, SD = 2.2

Did not fish: Average importance = 1 .7, SD = 1 .4

2.7 Seriousness about Sport Fishing

GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Background

How serious are
1

you

about

sport

fishing,

general? (Circle one r
1

lumber)

1
Not at all
serious

i
6 7
Very
serious

7-Very serious

o
'iz

1- Not at all serious

FIGURE 2.12: GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Background Q-5
HOW SERIOUS ABOUT SPORT FISHING

14.1%

10%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS (n = 92)
Average = 3.9, SD = 2.0

19.6%

20%

The degree to which visitors were serious about sport fishing differed significantly for
those who fished during their trip and those who did not, /(89) = -2.39, p = .019. On average,
people who fished during their visit were more serious about sport fishing (M = 4.3) than
those who did not fish (M = 3.2).

FIGURE 2.13: GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Background Q-5
HOW SERIOUS ABOUT SPORT FISHING BY FISHING STATUS

7- Very serious

w
a>

1- Not at all

16.1%

10.3%

14.5%

D Fished (n=62)
■ Did not fish (n=29)

27.4%

27.6%

24.1%

10%

20%

30%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS

Fished: Average = 4.3, SD = 1.9

Did not fish: Average = 3.2, SD = 2.1

2.8 Fishing Experience

GLBA Mail Survey, Post-Trip

4. Which of the following statements best describes your level of fishing experience? (Circle one

number)

I have never fished.

This trip was the first time I fished.

I have fished before this trip but do not go fishing every year.

I usually go fishing one or two days a year.

I usually go fishing 3 to 10 days a year.

I usually go fishing 1 1 to 20 days a year.

I usually go fishing more than 20 days a year.

FIGURE 2.14: GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Post-Trip Q-4
LEVEL OF FISHING EXPERIENCE

Fish more than 20 days a
year

Fish 1 1 to 20 days a year

Fish 3 to 10 days a year

Fish one or two days a
year

Fished before trip but not
every year

Trip was first time fishing ■1.1%

25.6%

32.2%

10% 20% 30%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS (n = 90)

40%

2.9 Group Characteristics
Boating Party Size

Contact Sheet

2. How many people are in your boating party?

FIGURE 2.15: GLBA Contact Sheet, Q-2
BOATING PARTY SIZE

34.0%

10%

20%

30%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS (n = 156)
Average boating party size = 4.4, SD = 2.0

40%

Number of People in Party with Alaska Fishing Licenses

Contact Sheet

3. How many people in your boating party have Alaska fishing licenses?

7 or more

Q-
O

a>
a.

■^
o

FIGURE 2.16: GLBA Contact Sheet, Q-3
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN BOATING PARTY WITH ALASKA FISHING LICENSES

10%

20%

30%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS (n = 153)
Average = 2.9 people, SD = 1.5

40%

Group Type

Contact Sheet

4. What is the make-up of your group today? (Check one box.)

□ INDIVIDUAL □ FAMILY □ FRIENDS □ FAMILY AND FRIENDS

□ OTHER (please specify)

Family

Family and friends

Friends

Individual

Other

FIGURE 2.17: GLBA Contact Sheet, Q-4
GROUP TYPE

42.3%

10% 20% 30%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS (n = 156)

40%

50%

Party Members under the Age of 18

Contact Sheet

Are there

any persons

under age

18 in

your party today

? (Check

one box.)

□

YES

- What are

the ages

of the

persons under

age 18 in

your group:

FIGURE 2.18: GLBA Boating Contact Sheet, Q5
PEOPLE UNDER 18 IN GROUP

People under
group
26.9%

No people under 18 in
group
73.1%

n = 156

3. Trip Characteristics and Experience

Respondents were asked questions about their boating trip to Glacier Bay proper.
They were also asked how willing they would be to recommend fishing in GLBA to others.
This section reports the data collected from these questions.

Highlights

• The survey period included June, July, and August. July had the most respondents
visit (47.3%) followed by June (30.1%) and then August (22.6%). The number of
days spent in Glacier Bay proper ranged from 1 to over 7 with the average being 4.5.
The most common length of stay was four days (25.3% of respondents) followed by
three days (23.1% of respondents). The 8.8% of respondents who stayed more than
seven days required an extension to their original permit.

• Whereas the average length of stay for all respondents was 4.5 days, the average
number of days fished for all respondents was 1.2 and for respondents who fished it
was 1.8 days. Of the 67% of respondents who fished in Glacier Bay proper during
their trip, 49.2% of them fished one day (32.6% of all respondents) and 29.5% fished
two days (20.7% of all respondents).

• Respondents were asked based on their trip how willing they would be to recommend
that others fish in Glacier Bay. Willingness ratings varied depending on whether
respondents fished or not in Glacier Bay proper. On average, respondents who fished
were more willing to recommend fishing in Glacier Bay (M = 4.6) than those
respondents who did not fish (M = 3.4).9 Review of the distributions of willingness
ratings for the two groups showed respondents "extremely willing" and "not at all
willing" to recommend fishing, although to differing extents.

• Qualitative analysis of written comments explaining respondents' willingness ratings
revealed that for about one-fourth of all respondents fishing was only part of the trip
experience. For both people who fished and those who did not, there was a small
percentage whose willingness to recommend fishing in GLBA may be influenced by

A score of 1 or 2 is considered not willing, a score of 3, 4, or 5 is considered somewhat willing and a score of
6 or 7 is considered very willing.

conservation/preservation motives. Specifically, about 5% of respondents want to
prevent others from fishing in the park and 10% of respondents indicated GLBA was
a "low impact area."

3. 1 Fishing during Trip and Number of Days Fished

Visitors who fished may differ from visitors who did not fish in their personal and
trip characteristics. To determine if such differences existed, analyses comparing visitors
who fished with those who did not were conducted for research findings in this chapter and
throughout the report. Whenever significant effects of this variable were observed, they are
reported. When the variable of fishing behavior is not discussed, readers can assume that
analyses found no significant effect of the variable.

GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Post-Trip

2. During the boat trip in which you were contacted, on how many of the days that you were in Glacier
Bay did you personally fish?

NUMBER OF DAYS FISHED IN GLACIER BAY PROPER

FIGURE 3.1: GLBA Mail-back questionnaire, Post-Trip Q-2.1
DID YOU PERSONALLY FISH DURING YOUR TRIP?

Fished
67.0

not fish
0%

n = 94

FIGURE 3.2: GLBA Mail-back Questoinnaire, Post-Trip Q-2.2
NUMBER OF DAYS FISHED FOR ALL RESPONDENTS

32.6%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS (n = 92)
Average number of days fished = 1.2, SD = 1.1

FIGURE 3.3: GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire Post-Trip 02
NUMBER OF DAYS FISHED FOR PEOPLE WHO FISHED DURING THEIR TRIP

40%

10% 20% 30%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS (n = 61)

Average number days fished= 1.8, SD=1.0

Includes only respondents who fished

40%

49.2%

50%

3.2 Number of People in Party who Fished

GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire Post- Trip

3. How many people in your boating party fished in Glacier Bay proper during the trip in which you
were contacted?

NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN BOATING PARTY WHO FISHED

FIGURE 3.4: GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Post-Trip Q-3
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN PARTY WHO FISHED

23.1%

10%

20%

28.6%

30%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS (n = 91)
Average number of people in party who fished = 2.0, SD = 1.8

3.3 Month of Trip

The survey period was between June 1, 2003 and September 15, 2003.

GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire Background

1 . When did you first enter Glacier Bay proper during the boat trip in which you were contacted for
this survey?

MONTH

DAY

(Please circle one)

TIME am or pm

August

July

June

FIGURE 3.5: GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Background Q-1
MONTH OF ENTRY

22.6%

30.1%

47.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS (n = 93)

70% 80%

3.4 Length of Trip

GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire Post-Trip

On the boat trip during which you were contacted, how long did you spend in Glacier Bay? (If you
did not stay overnight in the area write "0" for number of DAYS. If you do not remember how
long you were in Glacier Bay proper, circle "B").

DAYS

HOURS

B. DON'T REMEMBER

Don't remember

8 or more

=tfc

FIGURE 3.6: GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Post-Trip Q-1
NUMBER OF DAYS SPENT IN GLACIER BAY

25.3%

10%

20%

30%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS (n = 91)
Average # of days spent in GLBA = 4.5, SD = 1 .9

3.5 Willingness to Recommend Others Fish in GLBA

GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire Post-Trip

Based on your
Glacier Bay?

boat

trip in

Glacier

Bay,

how

willing would you

be to recommend that others fish in

Not at all

willing

Extremely
willing
1

1 2

Please explain:

7-extremely willing

ra
<r
w

(A
0)

c
c

1- not at all willing

FIGURE 3.7: GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Post-Trip Q-5
WILLINGNESS TO RECOMMEND FISHING IN GLACIER BAY

22.1%

10%

20%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS (n = 88)
Average willingness = 4.2, SD = 2.1

30%

The willingness of respondents to recommend fishing in Glacier Bay differed
significantly for those who fished during their trip and those who did not, /(83) = -2.35, p

.021. On average, people who fished during their visit were more willing to recommend
fishing in Glacier Bay (M = 4.6) then those respondents who did not fish (M = 3.4).

FIGURE3.8: GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Post-Trip Q-5
WILLINGNESS TO RECOMMEND FISHING IN GLACIER BAY BY FISHING STATUS

7-Extremely willing

DFished(n=61)
■ Did not fish (n = 24)

"■a

(0
(0

1- Not at all willing

10%

20%

30%

40%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS

Respondents who fished: Average = 4.6, SD = 2.0

Respondents who did not fish: Average = 3.4, SD = 2.3

Respondents were asked to explain their rating through written comments. To
qualitatively evaluate these comments, they were reviewed and 13 general themes were
identified. Comments were coded by these themes and the percent of respondents with
comments containing each of the 13 themes is shown in Figure 3.9. Of respondents who
commented, 10.4% appreciated GLBA as a "low impact area." Respondents indicated that
there was little pressure on or impact to fishing populations as there was low boat traffic
and/or few people fishing.

FIGURE 3.9: GLBA Mail-back questionnaire, Post-Trip Q-5
COMMENTS ON WILLINGNESS TO RECOMMEND FISHING

Fishing only part of trip activity / experience 1

Generally good fishing 1

Did not personally fish / no opinion 1

Better or equal fishing elsewhere 1

Good halibut fishing 1

1 1 0.4%

Low impact area 1

|10.4%

|9(

5%
5%

Overall poor fishing 1

Recommend more for scenery than fishing 1

I7'1

Want to prevent others from fishing in park 1

Fish eaten on trip 1

Not great fishing but fun 1

Lack of local fishing info / knowledge 1

Access to fishing area difficult 1

| 3.0%
| 3.0%
1 1 .5%

1 6.0%

25.4%

20.9%

17.9%

14.9%

10%

20%

30%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS (n = 67)
Percentages sum to more than 100% because comments could contain more than one theme

Percent of comments that contained each theme for respondents who fished during
their trip and those who did not fish are shown in Table 3.1. Many of the observed
differences were consistent with whether or not respondents had fished. For example,
compared to 30.2% of respondents who fished on this trip, only 4.8% of people who did not
fish on this trip indicated that there was generally good fishing in GLBA. Regardless of
fishing activity on this trip, about one-fourth of respondents indicated that fishing was only
part of this trip's activity or experience. Furthermore, about 5 percent of respondents want to
prevent others from fishing in the park and about 10 percent of respondents indicated that
GLBA was a "low impact area" suggesting that for both people who fished and did not fish
there is a small percentage whose willingness to recommend fishing in GLBA is influenced
by conservation/preservation motives.

Table 3.1: GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire, Post-trip Q-5
COMMENTS ON WILLINGNESS TO RECOMMEND FISHING BY FISHING STATUS

Theme

Fishing only part of trip activity / experience

Generally good fishing

Did not personally fish / no opinion

Better or equal fishing elsewhere

Good halibut fishing

Low impact area

Overall poor fishing

Recommend more for scenery than fishing

Want to prevent others from fishing in park

Fish eaten on trip

Not great fishing but fun

Lack of local fishing info / knowledge

Access to fishing area difficult

% of Respondents' comments with

theme

Fished

Did not fish

n=21

n=43

25.6%

23.8%

30.2%

4.8%

2.3%

52.5%

16.3%

9.5%

14.0%

4.8%

9.3%

9.5%

1 1 .6%

4.8%

1 1 .6%

0.0%

4.7%

4.8%

9.3%

0.0%

4.7%

0.0%

2.3%

4.8%

2.3%

0.0%

Percentages sum to more than 100% because comments could contain more than one theme

4. Fishing Effort, Catch, and Harvest: Mail-back
Questionnaire

During their first trip to Glacier Bay proper, respondents were asked to report daily
whether they fished, and if so, their fishing locations, effort, catch, and harvest. They were
also asked general questions about their fishing activities. This section reports these data
collected in the mail-back questionnaire.

Highlights

• The most commonly fished areas of Glacier Bay proper correspond to the central bay
area just below the west and east arms and north of the south end of Willoughby
Island and to the main bay area of the west arm. These areas were also commonly
fished in the 2002 pre-test. Although fishing was reported for most ocean and inlet
water areas of the bay proper in both years, no river locations were reported in 2003
and only five were reported in 2002. Thus, little of the fishing in Glacier Bay proper
was in freshwaters.

• Halibut was the most commonly targeted species in 2003 with 82.5% of respondents
fishing for it. Salmon, trout, and char were targeted by 39.7% of respondents in 2003.

• Comparison of the 2002-pre-test with the same time period in 2003 suggested that
targeting of species may vary significantly year-to-year. Specifically, although the
partial 2003 data showed the same pattern as the complete 2003 survey period, in
2002 59.5% of respondents targeted halibut and 54.1% of respondents targeted
salmonids. Thus, halibut was targeted less often and salmonids more often in 2002
than 2003.

• Of those respondents who fished in 2003, the average total hours fished was 5.0
hours, and 70% spent less than 4 hours in total fishing. The average hours spent
fishing in 2003 for the different species were fairly comparable ranging from 3.5
hours for salmonids to 3.8 hours for halibut.

• Comparison of the complete survey period with the partial survey period for 2003
revealed greater average fishing effort for halibut for the partial time period (July and

August) than for the complete time period (June, July, and August) suggesting that
halibut were not fished for as much in June as in July and August.
Compared to the partial 2003 data, the 2002 pre-test respondents had slightly higher
average fishing effort for halibut (5.1 vs. 4.4 hrs) and salmonids (3.4 vs. 2.3 hrs).
For the 2003 survey period, on average 3.2 halibut were caught by respondents who
targeted halibut and on average slightly more than half of them were kept (1.7 out of
3.2 fish). Whereas all of the small number of trout/char and most of the salmon
caught were kept, few of the other bottom fish caught were kept.
Comparison of the 2002 pre-test data with the partial 2003 data showed similar
average catch and harvest rates for halibut as observed for the complete 2003 survey
period. More coho salmon were caught in 2002 than 2003 consistent with higher
observed levels of fishing effort in 2002.

For the 2003 survey period, halibut had the highest CPUE and HPUE of any species
(0.77 and 0.51 fish/rod-hr, respectively). Although the halibut CPUE was slightly
higher for the 2002 pre-test than the partial 2003 period (0.79 vs. 0.67 fish/rod-hr,
respectively) the halibut HPUE were comparable (0.47 vs. 0.45 fish/rod-hr).
Expanded catch and harvest estimates revealed that halibut were the most commonly
caught and harvested species in 2003 and 2002. In 2003, an estimated 998 halibut
were caught and 530 were harvested (53.1%). Compared to 2003, there were fewer
halibut caught and harvested during the 2002 pre-test although the percent harvested
was similar (361 harvested out of 685 caught = 52.6%).

Consistent with greater fishing effort for salmonids in 2002 than 2003, more salmon
were caught (377 vs. 225 fish, respectively) and harvested (262 vs. 156 fish,
respectively) in 2002. However, the percent of fish caught that were harvested was
comparable for the two years (2002: 69.6%, 2003: 69.4%).

Review of Alaska Department of Fish and Game data for the Glacier Bay statistical
area shows similar year-to-year variability in catch and harvest estimates for the
different species as observed in our comparisons of 2002 and 2003 data. Together
these findings suggest it may be misleading to interpret any one year's data as being
representative or typical of other years.

4. 1 General Notes on Fishing Data

One should keep the following points in mind to fully understand the results for the
daily fishing reports.

1. Respondents self-reported fishing behavior was not validated.

2. The phrase "other bottom fish" refers to the following species: lingcod, rockfish,
salmon shark and dogfish. Halibut, also a bottom fish, is reported separately as it
is the most frequently targeted and harvested bottom fish species in GLBA.

3. One of the 2003 mail-back questionnaire respondents who indicated targeting
bottom fish reported catching 54 bottom fish in 6 hours. Park staff believed this
report was suspect given its unlikely nature. Therefore, fishing data for bottom
fish are presented both with and without this respondent's data.

4. As discussed in Section 1.4, a pre-test of the mail-back questionnaire was
conducted between July 9, 2002 and August 31, 2002. The same fishing data were
collected in 2002 as 2003, however the 2002 survey period was a subset of the
2003 survey period. To allow comparison between the two years, the 2003 data
corresponding approximately (July and August) to the 2002 time period were
selected and reported as "partial 2003" alongside the complete 2003 and 2002
findings.

5. Data on second or later trips of the season to GLBA were collected via a phone
survey of the vessel captain (Section 1.4 and 1.5). The captain reported on the
party's fishing behavior preventing a direct comparison with the mail-back
questionnaire that reported on individual's fishing behavior. For this reason,
fishing data from the phone survey are presented in Section V of this report.

4.2 Daily Fishing Reports

Page 4 of the mail-back questionnaire contained directions and examples on how to
complete the daily fishing reports. Page 5 contained a sample daily fishing report that
respondents could use as a reference while completing their own reports. The directions,
examples and sample report are reproduced on the following pages.

DAILY FISHING REPORTS

This part of the survey consists of daily reports. At the end of the day, please complete a Daily Fishing
Report for each day of your visit to Glacier Bay. Completing a daily report should take no longer than 3
minutes on average. If you miss a day, please fill in the report for that day at the earliest opportunity.

Review the example report and the instructions below before completing your Daily Fishing Reports. We have
included a map of the Glacier Bay area that has been divided into different areas that are numbered. The map
also includes rivers and creeks in which you may have fished. These are also numbered.

1 . Did you fish today? Instructions: For each day please indicate if you personally fished by circling "Yes" if
you fished and "No" if you did not fish. For purposes of this survey, crabbing is not considered fishing.

2. Fishing Locations Instructions: Using the enclosed map, find the area where you fished first and write
the corresponding number into the "Area # for 1st location" box. If you fished in additional locations
today, please record the corresponding numbers of those areas from the map into the columns for
additional fishing locations. If you fished in the same location on several days, please be sure to include
it in the Daily Fishing Report for each of those days.

3. Hours Fished Instructions: Now, think about how many hours you personally fished at each location
for each of the different groups of fish indicated in the table. Please record your time to the nearest quarter
hour on the line indicated for each group in the "Hours fished" column. If you cannot remember the amount
of time you spent fishing at each location for each group of fish, please record your best estimate.

4. Kept and Released Instructions: Please record for each location you fished how many fish of each
species you kept and how many you released. If you do not remember or don't know how may fish you
kept or how many you released of a species, write "DK" in the box. If you did not keep or release a
species you were targeting, write "0" for "# fish kept" and "0" for "# fish released" on the row for that
species.

EXAMPLE (as shown in table on next page)

On day 1 you fished so you circle "Yes" to answer "Did you fish today?"

Fishing Locations: Suppose on Day 1 you fished in Whidbey Passage and then in Glacier Bay just north of Drake
Island. By looking at the enclosed map, you find that Whidbey Passage is in Area 13 so you record "13" for "Area
# for Ist location" and that the second place you fished in Area 12 so you record " 12" for "Area #for 2"' location".

Hours fished: Suppose at Whidbey Passage (your first location) you fished 45 minutes for Halibut and 2 hours for
Salmon. In the "Hours Fished" box, you would record "3/4" for Halibut and "2" for "Salmon, Trout, Char". If you
fished 2 hours and 20 minutes for salmon in Glacier Bay just north of Drake Island (your second location), you
would record "2 'A" for "Salmon, Trout, Char".

Kept & Released: Your fishing efforts in Whidbey Passage resulted in you keeping 1 and releasing 2 Halibut.
Although you also fished for Chinook, all you caught was 1 salmon that you knew wasn 7 a Chinook so you
released it. Thus, you would record a "1 " in the "#fish kept " column on the Halibut row, a "2 " in the "# fish
released" column on the Halibut row, and a "1 " in the "#fish released" column on the unidentified salmon row.
Because you did not catch any Chinook salmon (which is what you were targeting), you would record a "0" in the
"#fish kept " and in the "#fish released" columns for the Chinook row. At your second fishing location, you kept
2 Chinook and released all the other salmon because you couldn 't identify them and now, can 7 remember how
many fish you released. You would record a "2" in the " #fish kept" column and a "0" in the "# fish released"
column for Chinook, and a "DK" in the "#fish released" column for unidentified salmon.

EXAMPLE REPORT

DAY 1: Did you fish today? (Circle one)

Is' Fishing Location

2nd Fishing Location

3r Fishing Location

4* Fishing Location

Area # for Is' location
13

Area # for 2nd location
12

Area # for 3"1 location

Area # for 4* location

# Hours Fished

± Halibut

_2 Salmon,Trout,Char

Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished

Halibut

~ T Salmon.Trout.Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished

Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char

Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished

Halibut

Salmon.Trout.Char

Other Bottom fish

#fish
kept

#fish
released

#fish
kept

#fish
released

# fish

kept

#fish
released

# fish
kept

#fish
released

Halibut

King Salmon
(Chinook)

Sockeye
Salmon (Red)

Coho Salmon
(Silver)

Chum Salmon
(Dog)

Pink Salmon
(Humpy)

Unidentified
Salmon

Rainbow/
Steelhead

Dolly
Varden/Char

Cutthroat
Trout

Lingcod

Rockfish

Salmon Shark

Dogfish (sand
or mud shark

4.3 Fishing Locations

In conjunction with the park fisheries biologist, the UWSMA graduate student
divided Glacier Bay proper into geographical areas meaningful for reporting fishing catch,
harvest, and effort. Each area was given a numerical code. A map with these location codes
was included in the survey packet (see Appendix C and below). In the "Fishing Location"
boxes on the daily fishing reports, respondents recorded the code for the area(s) where they
fished. As there were no locations where more than 30 respondents fished, fishing data are
only presented in aggregate (i.e., not separated by location).

As can be seen in Figure 4.1, the three most commonly fished locations were areas 7,
8, and 12. These areas correspond to the mid-bay area below the east and west arms and
north of the south end of Willoughsby Island and the central portion of the west arm.
Although fishing was reported for most ocean and inlet water areas of the bay proper, no
river locations were reported. Thus, no freshwater fishing was reported.

FIGURE 4.1: GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire
LOCATIONS WHERE PEOPLE FISHED

30.0%

33.3%

23.3%

16.7%

10%

20%

30%

40%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS WHO FISHED (n = 63)

Percentages sum to more than 100% because respondents fished in more than one location

*The bay was divided into sections and each given a code. See map in Appendix C.

Glacier Bay National Park

Boater Survev Mao

Bay Area Numbers are BOLDED.e.g., 10

Stream Identification N umbers are in italics and located near each river, creek, or stream, e.g., 35. Streams
with multiple forks have one number for all forks.

iJl

%-fSSs^r. 4'A 3

h 20 jf,r

<SJ f

--■. "i__r J, S.

\ '*-.•(

^X " /

"f '"""»

\*t*ri

> f

-N '■¥'

"^UJ _J"

LEGEND

Bay area boundary lines
Streams, Rivers, Creeks
Park Water Boundary
Glacier Bay National Park Land

Map Location

National Park Service

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve

Natural Resources

Bay Area Numbers are BOLDED,e.g., 10

Stream Identification N um bers are in italics and located near each river, creek, or stream, e.g., 35. Streams with
multiple forks have one number for all forks.

A comparison of the 2002 survey period with the comparable period in 2003 revealed
that Areas 7, 8, and 12 were commonly fished in both years (see Table 4.1). Whereas in
2003 no one reported fishing in inlets or rivers, in 2002 people reported fishing in N. Berg
Creek, Beartrack River, York Creek, Bartlett River, and in stream 25 (unofficially named
"North Fingers"). Thus, freshwater fishing occurred in 2002 but none was reported in 2003.
These data suggest some year-to-year variation in the occurrence and location of freshwater
fishing whereas ocean water fishing was fairly consistent with regard to location.

Table 4.1 GLBA Daily Fishing Reports, Mail-back questionnaire (2002 and 2003)
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS WHO FISHED IN EACH LOCATION AREA1

Location

2002 Pre-test

2003 (partial)

Code

July

9- Aug 31

July

1 -Aug 31

18.9

13.2

13.5

13.2

16.2

15.8

10.8

13.2

2.7

7.9

2.7

0.0

29.7

28.9

32.4

36.8

8.1

10.5

27.0

13.2

2.7

13.2

21.6

34.2

10.8

2.6

10.8

5.3

0.0

2.6

8.1

0.0

2.7

0.0

2.7

0.0

2.7

0.0

5.4

0.0

The bay was divided inlo sections and each given a code. See map above.

4.4 Species Targeted

In the "# Hours fished" box on the daily fishing report, respondents reported the
amount of time they targeted particular species. These data were used to determine the

percent of respondents who targeted the different species. Respondents who indicated they
fished for any amount of time for a particular species were considered to target that species.
The daily fishing report grouped salmon, trout, and char (i.e., salmonids) together when
asking respondents for the number of hours fished for these species.

As can be seen in Figure 4.2, halibut were the most commonly targeted species for
the 2003 survey period (82.5%) followed by salmonids (39.7%). Comparison of the same
time periods for 2002 and 2003 show different distributions for the two years (see Figure
4.3). Although the partial 2003 data showed the same pattern as the full 2003 survey period,
in 2002 59.5% of respondents targeted halibut and almost an equal percentage targeted
salmonids (54.1%). These data suggest that fishing behavior may vary significantly from
year to year. Thus, findings for 2003 may not be representative of all fishing seasons or even
of a typical season.

FIGURE 4.2: GLBA Daily Fishing Report, Mail-back questionnaire
PERCENT OF 2003 FISHING RESPONDENTS WHO TARGETED EACH SPECIES

Halibut

Salmon, trout, char

Other bottom fish

82.5%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS WHO FISHED (n = 63)
Percentages sum to more than 100% because respondents targeted more than one species.
Includes only respondents who fished.

FIGURE 4.3: GLBA Daily Fishing Report, Mail-back Questionnaire (2002 and 2003)
PERCENT OF FISHING RESPONDENTS WHO TARGETED EACH SPECIES: 2002 AND 2003

Halibut

Salmon, trout, char

Other bottom fish

82.9%

D 2003 partial (n=41)
■ 2002 pre-test (n=37)

54.1%

30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS

2003 partial includes only the survey period between July 1 and Aug. 31, 2003

2002 pre-test had survey period of between July 9 and Aug. 31, 2002

Includes only those respondents who fished.

4.5 Fishing Effort Overall and by Species

Fishing effort in total and by species was calculated from reported "# Hours Fished"
reported in the daily fishing reports. Total fishing effort results are presented both for all
respondents (Figure 4.4) and for only those respondents who fished (Figure 4.5). For
respondents who fished, the total hours fished ranged from less than one to over 15 with the
average total hours fished being 5.0 (see Figure 4.5). Over half of respondents who fished
spent between one and four hours fishing (55.6% of respondents who fished or 37.2% of all
respondents).

FIGURE 4.4: GLBA Daily Fishing Report, Mail-back Questionnaire
TOTAL HOURS FISHED IN GLBA: ALL RESPONDENTS

0.1 - 1

10% 20% 30%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS (n = 94)
Average total hours fished = 3.3, SD = 4.7

40%

FIGURE4.5: GLBA Daily Fishing Report, Mail-back Questionnaire
TOTAL HOURS FISHED IN GLBA: RESPONDENTS WHO FISHED

15.1 and over

10.1 - 15.0

5.1 - 10.0

4.1 -5.0

3.1 -4.0

2.1 -3.0

1.1 -2

0.1 -1

10% 20%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS WHO FISHED (n = 63)
Average total hours fished = 5.0, SD = 5.0
Includes only those respondents who fished.

30%

Table 4.2 reports average effort (in hours) per respondent by species for the complete
2003 survey period, the 2002 pre-test, and the comparable partial 2003 survey period. The
2003 complete survey period data indicated that average fishing effort was fairly comparable
regardless of species. Compared to the partial 2003 data, the 2002 pre-test respondents had
slightly higher average fishing effort for halibut (5.1 vs. 4.4 hrs) and salmonids (3.4 vs. 2.3
hrs). These data suggest that effort for the two years was fairly comparable, although a
smaller percentage of respondents were found to fish in 2002 than the comparable period in
2003 (48.1% vs. 63.1%). Furthermore, comparison of this partial time period (July through
August) with the complete survey season (June through August) revealed greater average
fishing effort for halibut in July through August than for June through August suggesting that
halibut are not fished as heavily in June.

Table 4.2: GLBA Daily Fishing Report, Mail-back questionnaire (2002 and 2003)
AVERAGE EFFORT (M HOURS FISHED) PER PERSON WHO TARGETED SPECIES

Species

2002 Pre-test

2003 (partial)

2003 (complete)

July

9 -Aug 31

July 1 - Aug

June

1 -Aug 31

Salmon/trout/char

M (hrs)

3.4

2.3

3.5

3.0

2.7

3.9

Halibut

M (hrs)

5.1

4.4

3.8

4.9

4.2

3.7

Other bottom fish1

M (hrs)

1.9

3.2

4.1

1.0

2.5

4.3

Other bottom fish (adjusted)2

M (hrs)

1.8

3.7

0.4

4.7

Total effort3

M (hrs)

5.2

4.7

5.0

5.7

4.5

5.0

' "Other bottom fish" includes lingcod, rockfish, salmon shark and dogfish. Halibut are reported separately.

2 Excludes one respondent of the 2003 mail-back questionnaire who reported catching 54 bottom fish in 6 hours. Park staff

believed these data were suspect and so he/she was excluded.

5 Includes respondents who targeted any species.

4.6 Average Targeted Catch and Harvest per Person by Species

Respondents were asked to report the number offish kept and released for each
species in the daily fishing reports. Catch refers to all fish caught whether or not they were
released, and harvest refers to all fish kept. Data were tabulated and reported by individual
species and by related species groupings (see Table 4.3).

For the 2003 survey period, on average 3.2 halibut were caught by respondents who
targeted halibut and on average slightly more than half of them were kept (1.7 out of 3.2
fish). Whereas all of the small number of trout/char (0.1 of 0.1 fish) and most of the salmon
(1.0 of 1.5 fish) caught were kept, few of the other bottom fish caught were kept (adjusted
0.6 out of 4.6 fish).

Comparison of the 2002 and comparable partial 2003 survey periods revealed similar
average number of halibut caught and kept for the two years (2002: 2.0 kept out of 3.8
caught, 2003: 1.9 kept out of 3.3 caught). Consistent with higher reported fishing effort for
2002, more salmon and trout/char were caught and kept in 2002 than the comparable period
for 2003. Review of the individual species data indicated that the higher average catch of
salmon was primarily due to more coho salmon being caught in 2002 than 2003 (2.0 vs. 0.1
fish). Interestingly, catch rates for pink salmon during 2003 were more than an order of
magnitude higher than in 2002 for the July and August period. This finding agreed well with
the fact that odd year pink salmon runs in Southeast Alaska are the dominant run for this two
year life cycle species. Even year runs of pink salmon in Southeast Alaska streams (and
similarly in marine waters) are typically quite small.

Table 4.3: GLBA Daily Fishing Report, Mail-back questionnaire (2002 and 2003)
AVERAGE TARGETED CATCH AND HARVEST (M # OF FISH) PER PERSON BY SPECIES

Species

2002 Pre-test

2003

(partial)

2003 (complete)

July 9-

-Aug 31

July 1

-Aug 31

June 1

-Aug 31

Catch

Harvest

Catch

Harvest

Catch

Harvest

Salmon (all species)

M (# of fish)

2.3

1.6

0.8

0.3

1.5

1.0

3.9

2.5

1.5

0.6

2.6

2.1

Trout/char (all species)

M(#offish)

1.3

0.3

0.2

0.1

3.3

0.8

0.6

0.4

Halibut

M(#offish)

3.8

2.0

3.3

1.9

3.2

1.7

4.5

2.4

6.8

2.8

6.1

2.3

Other bottom fish1

M (# of fish)

0.4

18.7

2.3

12.9

1.3

0.9

30.6

2.5

20.9

2.0

Other bottom fish (adjusted)2

M (# of fish)

1.0

4.6

0.6

1.4

6.1

0.9

Individual Salmonid species3

King Salmon

M (# of fish)

0.2

0.0

0.4

0.0

Coho salmon

M(#offish)

2.0

1.4

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.0

4.0

2.6

0.3

0.0

0.3

0.0

Pink salmon

M (# of fish)

0.05

0.7

0.3

0.4

0.2

1.5

0.6

1.2

0.5

Unidentified salmon

M (# of fish)

0.1

0.0

1.0

0.9

0.4

0.0

2.5

2.1

Dolly Varden/char4

M(#offish)

0.7

0.2

0.1

0.7

0.6

0.4

Rainbow/Steelhead trout

M (# of fish)

0.5

0.1

0.0

2.0

0.4

0.0

Cutthroat trout

M(#offish)

0.2

0.0

0.7

0.0

NOTE: Because there was no by-catch, only respondents who targeted a particular species were included in the average

catch and harvest estimates.

' "Other bottom fish" includes lingcod, rockfish, salmon shark and dogfish. Halibut are reported separately.

2 Excludes one respondent of the 2003 mail-back questionnaire who reported catching 54 bottom fish in 6 hours. Park staff

believed these data were suspect and so he/she was excluded.

? No sockeye or chum salmon were caught in either 2002 or 2003.

4 Dolly Varden are the only form of char in SE Alaska. Char is included here to be consistent with the data collection

instrument.

4.7 Harvest (HPUE) and Catch (CPUE) Rates by Species' Groupings

Estimates of catch per unit effort (CPUE) and harvest per unit effort (HPUE) were
calculated using the mean of the ratios estimator as described by Pollack et al. (1997). This
method was consistent with that used in the creel survey and telephone survey components of
the GLBA fishing study. The mean of the ratios estimator is calculated by computing the
estimate (e.g., HPUE or CPUE) for each respondent and then taking the average for all
respondents. CPUE was calculated by dividing each respondent's catch for that species'
grouping (number of fish) by their total effort (hours fished for that species' grouping).
Similarly, HPUE was calculated by dividing each respondent's harvest for that species
(number of fish) by their total effort (hours fished for that species). Effort for each species
was calculated as described earlier. As by-catch did not occur, only respondents who targeted
a particular species were included in that species average CPUE or HPUE estimate. Because
each person is allowed to only fish one rod at a time, HPUE and CPUE values are reported as
number of fish per rod hour of effort.

Review of Table 4.4 shows that for the 2003 complete survey period, halibut had the
highest CPUE and HPUE of any species (0.77 and 0.51 fish/rod-hr, respectively).
Comparison of the 2002 pre-test with the comparable partial 2003 period revealed that
halibut CPUE was slightly higher for 2002 than the partial 2003 period (0.79 vs. 0.67

fish/rod-hr), although HPUE was comparable (0.47 vs. 0.45 fish/rod hr). The partial 2003
respondents had the highest CPUE for salmon of any group at 0.78 fish/rod-hr and this group
was the only one to report a higher CPUE for salmon than halibut.

Table 4.4: GLBA Daily Fishing Report, Mail-back questionnaire (2002 and 2003)
AVERAGE TARGETED CATCH (CPUE) AND HARVEST (HPUE) RATES PER PERSON BY

SPECIES GROUPINGS (FISH /ROD-HOUR)

Species

2002 Pre-test

July 9- Aug 31

2003

July 1

(partial)

-Aug 31

2003

June

(complete)

1 -Aug 31

CPUE

HPUE

CPUE

HPUE

CPUE

HPUE

Salmon (all species)

M (fish / hour)

0.61

0.41

0.78

0.24

0.59

0.23

0.61

0.49

1.59

0.60

1.21

0.49

Trout/char (all species)

M (fish / hour)

0.28

0.10

0.12

0.07

0.57

0.34

0.44

0.33

Halibut

M (fish / hour)

0.79

0.47

0.67

0.45

0.77

0.51

1.24

0.67

0.87

0.53

0.91

0.57

Other bottom fish1

M (fish / hour)

0.05

0.03

0.26

0.09

0.23

0.06

0.21

0.17

1.10

0.34

0.92

0.28

Other bottom fish (adjusted)2

M (fish / hour)

0.09

0.08

0.13

0.05

0.34

0.33

0.41

0.27

NOTE: Because there was no by-catch, only respondents who targeted a particular species were included in the average
CPUE and HPUE estimates.

1 "Other bottom fish" includes lingcod, rockfish, salmon shark and dogfish. Halibut are reported separately.

2 Excludes one respondent of the 2003 mail-back questionnaire who reported catching 54 bottom fish in 6 hours.
Park staff believed these data were suspect and so he/she was excluded.

4.8 Expanded Catch, and Harvest Estimates

Expanded catch and harvest estimates were calculated for the 2003 survey period and
for the 2002 pre-test survey period. These estimates were for licensed anglers aboard first-
trip, private vessels within Glacier Bay proper during the survey period. These estimates do
not include fish that were caught or harvested by subsequent entry licensed anglers as these
data were collected on a per party basis and are presented in Section 5.

Estimate of Boater/Angler Population Size for 2003 Survey Period

Although a census was attempted, not all targeted visitors were contacted to
participate in the boater survey and not all those who agreed to participate returned their
survey (see Section 1). Thus, the total number of licensed anglers aboard first-trip, private
vessels within Glacier Bay proper during the survey period needed to be derived.

GLBA staff queried the park's vessel entry database for private vessel permits during
June, July and August 2003 and classified visits as either first or subsequent. A total of 286
vessels (i.e., parties) entered Glacier Bay proper on private vessel permits for a first visit.

To determine what percentage of these parties had at least one licensed angler,
information from the Glacier Bay National Park Captain Orientation Signature Sheet was
used (available at the VIS). This sheet asked permit holders to indicate the number of people
in their party who had Alaska fishing licenses (if any). Not all parties completed part or all
of this form. When data were missing on this sheet for parties we contacted, information
from the contact sheet was used to determine if the party indeed had a licensed angler.
Between the two sources, data were available for 240 of 274 parties. Of these 240 parties,
189 (78.8%) had a licensed angler. Multiplying the total number of parties per the park's
vessel entry database by this percentage (286 x 78.8%) resulted in an estimate of 225.4
parties that had at least one member with an Alaska fishing license.

To get the total number of visitors in parties that had at least one licensed angler aboard
first-trip, private vessels within Glacier Bay proper, it was necessary to multiply the number
of parties with at least one licensed angler by the average party size. The average party size
based on responses to the mail questionnaire provided the best estimate available and

resulted in 1,001 people in parties with at least one licensed angler aboard first-trip of the
season private vessels within Glacier Bay proper (225.4 parties x 4.44 visitors per party).
Finally, data from the contact sheet (Questions 2 and 3) were used to estimate that
56.3% of people in parties with licensed anglers had their own Alaska fishing license.
Multiplying the 1,001 people in parties with at least one licensed angler aboard first-trip of
the season private vessels within Glacier Bay proper by this percentage yielded an estimated
564 licensed anglers on first-trip of the season private vessels in Glacier Bay proper.

As 67.0% of respondents with an Alaska fishing license fished in Glacier Bay proper
during their trip (Figure 2.1), it was estimated that a total of 378 licensed anglers on first-trip
of the season private vessels in Glacier Bay proper fished in Glacier Bay proper (564 x 67%).

Estimate of Boater/Angler Population Size for 2002 Survey Period

The same approach was used to estimate the angler population size for the 2002
survey period. When necessary data were not available for the 2002 pre-test, data obtained in
2003 were used as the best estimates available. However, the validity of assuming these two
years values were the same is unknown.

The park vessel entry database indicated a total of 303 vessels entered Glacier Bay
proper on private vessel permits for a first visit during June, July, and August. The
percentage of parties that had at least one licensed angler was assumed to be the same as
2003 (78.8%) and resulted in an estimated 239 parties having at least one licensed angler
aboard first-trip of the season private vessels within Glacier Bay proper (303 x 78.8%). To
estimate total number of visitors in parties that had at least one licensed angler aboard first-
trip of the season private vessels within Glacier Bay proper, the 239 parties was multiplied by
the average party size for visitors on their first visit of the season to GLBA on private vessel
permits based on the survey data from 2002 (4.19 people per party). The resultant estimated
1,001 people in these parties were multiplied by the estimated proportion of licensed anglers
according to the 2003 data (56.3%). Multiplying the 1,001 people in parties with at least one
licensed angler aboard first-trip of the season private vessels within Glacier Bay proper by
this percentage resulted in a total of 564 licensed anglers aboard first-trip of the season
private vessels within Glacier Bay proper.

Analyses of the 2002 pre-test questionnaire data indicated that 53.6% of licensed anglers
fished in Glacier Bay proper during their trip. Thus, it was estimated that a total of 302
licensed anglers aboard first-trip of the season, private vessels fished within Glacier Bay
proper (564 x 53.6%).

Expanded Catch and Harvest Estimates for Angler Population

Angler population estimates of catch and harvest by species for visitors who fished in
Glacier Bay proper with an Alaska fishing license and who entered GLBA on a first trip of
the season with a private vessel permit were derived using the following formula:

Estimated

Estimated total

% of licensed

Average targeted

Angler Pop.

# of licensed

anglers

catch or harvest

Catch or Harvest =

anglers on 1st x

who fished :

< per person

for Species

trip of season

that targeted

for species

in Glacier Bay

who fished

species

(# of fish)

The estimated total number of licensed anglers who fished was 378 in 2003 and 302
in 2002. The percentages of licensed anglers who fished that targeted each species presented
in Figures 4.2 (2003) and 4.3 (2002), and the average targeted catch and targeted harvest (#
offish) per person by species presented in Table 4.3 (2003 and 2002) were used in the angler
population estimates. Table 4.5 summarizes the 2002 and 2003 expanded catch and harvest
estimates for licensed, first-trip of the season, private vessel anglers that fished within
Glacier Bay proper by species.

Table 4.5: GLBA Daily Fishing Report, Mail-back questionnaire (2002 and 2003)

POPULATION CATCH AND HARVEST ESTIMATES FOR LICENSED, FIRST TRIP OF

THE SEASON ANGLERS ABOARD PRIVATE VESSELS BY SPECIES

Catch Estimate for June 1 to Harvest Estimate for June 1 to

Aug 31 (# of fish) Aug 31 (# of fish)

Species

Salmon (all)

Trout/char

Halibut

Other bottom fish1

Other bottom fish
(adjusted)2

Individual Species3
King salmon
Coho salmon
Pink salmon
Unidentified salmon
Dolly Varden/char
Rainbow/Steelhead trout
Cutthroat trout

2002

2003

2002

2003

377

225

262

156

213

685

998

361

530

463

NA 165 NA 22

320

221

156

132

115

1 "Other bottom fish" includes lingcod, rockfish, salmon shark and dogfish. Halibut are reported
separately.

2 Excludes one respondent of the 2003 mail-back questionnaire who reported catching 54 bottom fish
in 6 hours. Park staff believed these data were suspect and so they were excluded.

3 * *

Summing the individual species estimates may not equal the total species estimate because of
rounding error.

As can be seen in Table 4.5, halibut was the most commonly caught and harvested
species in 2002 and 2003, although the estimates varied year-to-year. In 2003, an estimated
998 halibut were caught and 530 harvested, and in 2002, 685 were caught and 361 harvested.
The percent of halibut caught that were harvested however were comparable for the two
years (52.6% in 2002 and 53.1% in 2003).

Salmon were the next most commonly caught and harvested species in both 2002 and
2003. Estimates of salmon caught and harvested again varied for the two years however the
percent of salmon caught that were harvested was comparable for the two years (69.6% in
2002 and 69.4% in 2003).

The year-to-year variability in the estimated angler population catch and harvest for
the survey period (June, July, and August) was evident for all species in Table 4.5. These

differences may be due to differences in the two groups of visitors. The demographic data for
the two years is presented in Table 4.6 and shows the two groups to be fairly comparable.
Compared to 2003, in 2002 there were more non-Alaskan US residents and fewer local
Alaskan residents. However, no differences due to residence were found with respect to any
of the fishing variables. It is possible that the two groups differed on variables not measured.

Table 4.6: GLBA Mail-back questionnaire (2002 and 2003)

DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISON OF 2002 PRE-TEST

AND 2003 PARTIAL SURVEY RESPONDENTS

Demographic

2002 Pre-test

2003 (Partial)

Characteristic

July 9 -Aug 31

July

1 -Aug 31

Percent Male

82.4

77.3

Average Age (years)

53.9

56.2

Percent Local AK residents

8.6

13.6

Percent Non-AK US residents

78.6

72.8

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Walker et al. 2001) have collected fishing data on
a yearly basis to estimate catch and harvest for areas throughout the state. Review of the
ADFG estimates from 1990 to 2004 for the Glacier Bay statistical area however showed
similar year-to-year variability in catch and harvest by species10. A census was attempted for
the 2002 and 2003 data reported here yet, the total number of visitors was relatively small. If
considerable variability among angler's fishing behavior exists, corresponding year-to-year
variation in fishing effort, catch, and harvest will be observed. The 2002 and 2003 data
highlight the need for multi-year data to better understand inherent variability in angling
behavior and predict trends.

Prior to 2000 Glacier Bay proper was not separated out to allow for direct comparison. Since 2000, data for
Glacier Bay proper inside GLBA has been reported separately. However, data for Glacier Bay — park status
unknown was also reported for 2002 and 2003 and thus, it is unclear whether these data should be included.
Regardless, the year-to-year variability was observed.

5. Fishing Effort, Catch and Harvest: Phone Survey

Fishing effort, catch and harvest data from boating parties with private vessel permits on
their subsequent visits to Glacier Bay during the 2003 season were obtained by a phone
survey. Party permit holders were contacted and asked to report the fishing activity for their
party. This section reports these data. Section 6 includes a comparison of the results of the
phone and mail surveys.

Highlights

• Of parties who entered on second or later trips on a private vessel permit, 79.1% had
people in their party fish. Halibut was the most commonly targeted species (89.1% of
parties that fished) followed by salmon, trout, and char (26.6% of parties that fished).
Furthermore, more time was spent fishing for halibut than salmon/trout. Specifically,
on average the total hours at least one person in the party fished for halibut was 5.3
whereas it was 2.2 hours for salmon/trout, and total number of rod-hours per party
fishing for halibut was 23.3 compared to 4.6 for salmon/trout.

• Only two parties spent any time targeting other bottom fish.

• Consistent with parties putting more effort toward halibut, average halibut catch and
harvest per party were higher than those for other species. On average, parties caught
6.5 halibut and harvested 3.4 of them. On average, parties caught 2.5
salmon/trout/char and harvested 1.0 of them. The percent of fish caught that was
harvested was 52.3% for halibut and 40.0% for salmon, trout, and char.

• CPUE and HPUE for salmon were higher (0.96 and 0.59 fish/rod-hr, respectively)
than those for halibut (0.39 and 0.22 fish/rod-hr, respectively) suggesting these parties
were more effective at fishing for salmon than halibut.

• An estimated 742 halibut, 86 salmonids, and 8 bottom fish were caught by subsequent
visit, private vessel angler parties in Glacier Bay proper during the 2003 survey
period. An estimated 390 halibut, 34 salmonids, and 2 bottom fish were harvested by
these boaters.

5. 1 General Notes on Phone Survey

Readers should keep the following points in mind to fully understand the results for
the phone survey.

1. Respondents self-reported fishing behavior was not validated.

2. The phrase "other bottom fish" refers to the following species: lingcod, rockfish,
salmon shark and dogfish. Halibut, also a bottom fish, is reported separately as it is
the most frequently targeted and harvested bottom fish species in GLBA.

3. Data on first trips of the season to GLBA were collected via the mail-back
questionnaire. Those data were collected on a per individual basis preventing a direct
comparison to the phone survey which was collected on a per party basis. For this
reason, fishing data from the mail-back questionnaire are presented in Section IV of
this report.

4. It was assumed that all captains entering the bay proper on a second or third trip on
their private vessel permit radioed the park as required.

5. No data were available to examine non-response bias for the phone survey. If the
captains who participated in the phone survey differed significantly from the captains
who did not participate, then the results may not accurately represent the population.

5.2 Parties with at Least One Person Who Fished in Glacier Bay

Phone Survey Script, Question 8

How many rods were being fished on your boat for <insert species respondents targeted>
at each location on the <insert day of fishing e.g., first> day? Ask this question for each of
the species respondents indicated they targeted.

During the interviews, the above question was asked for each location and species.
These data were used to determine the percentage of parties in which one person fished in
Glacier Bay proper during their trip. As can be seen in Figure 5.1, 79.1% of parties who
entered Glacier Bay proper on a subsequent trip with their private vessel permit had at least
one member of the party fish in the bay proper.

FIGURE 5.1: GLBA Phone Survey
PERCENT OF PARTIES THAT HAD AT LEAST ONE MEMBER FISH IN GLACIER BAY PROPER

Did not fish
20.9%

n = 86

Fished
79.1%

5.3 Fishing Activity by Species

Phone Survey Script, Question 6

Out of the following species, which ones were you targeting on the <insert day of fishing
e.g., first> day at <insert location>? Ask this question for each location fished on this day.

1 Salmon / trout

2 Bottom fish

3 Halibut

FIGURE 5.2: GLBA Phone Survey
PERCENT OF FISHING PARTIES THAT TARGETED EACH SPECIES

Halibut

Salmon / trout

26.6%

89.1%

Other bottom fish

3.1%

10% 20% 30% 40%

50% 60%

70%

80% 90%

PERCENT OF PARTIES WHO FISHED (n=64)

Includes only the 79.1% of parties who fished.

Percentages sum to more than 100% because parties targeted more than one species

5.4 Fishing Effort

Phone survey script, Questions 7 & 8

How much time were you actively fishing at each location for <insert species respondents
targeted> on the <insert day of fishing e.g., first> day? Ask this question for each of the
species respondents indicated they targeted.

Captains were asked to report on the fishing activities for their party, and thus, data
reported in this section are by boating party and not by individual. Only parties that reported
targeting a species were included in the fishing effort calculations for that species. As only
two party captains reported time spent targeting bottom fish, charts showing the distribution
of fishing effort for other bottom fish were not included.

Fishing effort was collected by location and species using the above questions. These
data were used to calculate the total number of hours at least one person in the party spent
fishing for each species and the total number of rod hours the party spent fishing for each
species. Rod-hours were calculated for each party by multiplying the total rods by the total
hours spent fishing for that species.

As can be seen in Figures 5.3 and 5.4, parties spent more time fishing for halibut than
salmonids. About 32.0% of parties had nine or fewer total rod-hours targeting halibut
compared to over 80.0% of parties that had nine or fewer total rod-hours targeting salmonids.
Furthermore, the average number of hours at least one person in the party fished for halibut
was 5.3 compared to 2.2 for salmonids (see Table 5.1).

FIGURE 5.3: GLBA Phone Survey
TOTAL HOURS AT LEAST ONE PERSON IN PARTY FISHED FOR SPECIES BY SPECIES*

10 or more

6-9.9

5-5.9

4-4.9

3-3.9

2-2.9

1 -1.9

Less than 1

0.0%

14.0%

19.3%

D Salmon/trout (n=17)
■ Halibut (n=57)

22.8%

10% 20%

PERCENT OF PARTIES

Average total number hours at least one person in party targeted halibut = 5.3, SD = 3.2

Average total number at least one person in party targeted salmon = 2.2, SD = 1.7

*Only two parties reported spending time targeting other bottom fish.

29.4%

30%

FIGURE 5.4: GLBA Phone Survey
TOTAL NUMBER OF ROD-HOURS PER PARTY BY SPECIES

80 or more

60-79

■a
o
<r

12.3%

40-59

20-39

10- 19

0-9

35.1%

31.6%

□ Salmon/trout (n=17)
■ Halibut (n=57)

82.4%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

PERCENT OF PARTIES

Average total number rod-hours/party that targeted halibut = 23.3, SD = 24.3

Average total number rod-hours/party that targeted salmon = 4.6, SD = 5.4

Table 5.1: GLBA Phone Survey
SUMMARY OF PARTY'S FISHING EFFORT

~ # Hours at least one person „ _, . .

Species . ,. . . , r # Rod-hrs

r in party fished for species

Salmon/trout

M 2.2 hrs 4.6 rod-hrs

SD 1.7 5.4

n M 17

Halibut

M 5.3 hrs 23.3 rod-hrs

SD 3.2 24.3

n 57 57

Other bottom fish1

M 4.0 hrs 6.5 rod-hrs

SD 1.4 5.0

n 2 2

' Other bottom fish includes lingcod, rockfish, salmon shark and dogfish. Halibut are reported
separately.

5.5 Average Targeted Catch and Harvest per Party by Species

Phone Survey Script, Questions 9 & 10

How many <insert species name> were kept by your Ashing party at each location the

<insert day of fishing e.g., first> day?

How many <insert species name> were released by your fishing party at each location

the <insert day of fishing e.g., first> day?

The phone survey asked the captain to report the number of fish the party kept (i.e.,
harvested) and released for each species. Catch refers to all fish caught whether or not they
were released and was calculated by adding the reported number of fish kept to those
released. As by-catch was not an issue, only parties that targeted a particular species were
included in that species' average catch and harvest estimates.

Table 5.2 GLBA Phone Survey
AVERAGE TARGETED CATCH AND HARVEST PER PARTY BY SPECIES

Species

Catch

Harvest

(# of fish/party)

Salmon/trout

M (# of fish)

2.5

1.0

3.2

1.5

Halibut

M (# of fish)

6.5

3.4

6.5

3.4

Other bottom fish1

M (# of fish)

2.0

0.5

1.4

0.7

Other bottom fish includes lingcod, rockfish, salmon shark and dogfish. Halibut are reported
separately.

Table 5.2 shows that more halibut were caught and harvested than salmonids or other
bottom fish. These data in conjunction with the rod-hour data suggested that halibut were the
preferred species and that people were willing to spend more time fishing to catch and
harvest them.

5.6 Harvest (HPUE) and Catch (CPUE) Rates by Species

Estimates of catch per unit effort (CPUE) and harvest per unit effort (HPUE) were
calculated using the mean of the ratios estimator as described by Pollack et al. (1997). This
method was consistent with that used in the creel survey and on-site/mail survey components
of the GLBA fishing study. The mean of the ratios estimator was calculated by computing
the estimate (e.g., HPUE or CPUE) for each party and then taking the average for all parties.
CPUE was calculated by dividing each party's catch for that species' grouping (number of
fish) by their total effort (hours fished for that species' grouping). Similarly, HPUE was
calculated by dividing each party's harvest for that species (number of fish) by their total
effort (hours fished for that species). Effort for each species was calculated as described
earlier. As by-catch did not occur, only respondents who targeted a particular species were

included in that species average CPUE or HPUE estimate. Throughout this report, HPUE and
CPUE values are reported as # of fish per rod hour of effort. HPUE and CPUE estimates
were not calculated for other bottom fish, as only two parties reported actively fishing for
these species.

Table 5.3 GLBA Phone Survey
AVERAGE TARGETED CATCH RATE (CPUE) AND HARVEST RATE (HPUE) PER PARTY BY

SPECIES

Species

CPUE HPUE

(# of fish/rod-hr.) (# of fish/rod-hr.)

Salmon/trout

M (fish /rod-hr)
SD
n
Halibut

M (fish /rod-hr)

0.96

0.59

1.30

1.17

0.39

0.22

0.44

0.25

Table 5.3 shows that catch and harvest rates were higher for salmonids than for halibut
indicating these parties were more effective at catching salmonids than halibut.

5.7 Expanded Catch and Harvest Estimates

Angler population catch and harvest estimates were calculated for the 2003
survey period for all parties who entered Glacier Bay proper on a private vessel permit
during their second or later visit of the 2003 season. These total catch and harvest estimates
do not include fish that were caught and harvested by visitors to Glacier Bay proper on
private vessel permits during their first visits of the season as these data were collected on a
per individual basis and are presented in Section 4.

Estimate of Boater/Angler Population Size for 2003 Survey Period

Although a census was attempted, not all captains were reached or participated in
the phone survey (see Section 1). Thus, the total number of parties who entered GLBA on a
private vessel permit for a second or third visit and fished needed to be estimated. Park

records indicated that 162 boating parties entered Glacier Bay proper on a subsequent visit
this season. Per the phone survey, the percentage of parties that had at least one party
member who fished was 79.1%. Multiplying this percentage by the 162 parties resulted in an
estimated 128 parties who entered Glacier Bay proper with a private vessel permit on a
subsequent visit of the 2003 season that had at least one member fish.

Expanded Catch and Harvest Estimates for Angler Population

Angler population estimates of catch and harvest by species for visitors who fished in
Glacier Bay proper and who entered GLB A on a second or third trip of the season with a
private vessel permit were derived using the following formula:

Estimated

Estimated total

% of parties

Average targeted

Angler Pop.

# of parties

who fished

catch or harvest

Catch or Harvest =

who had one x

that targeted

x per party

for Species

member fish on

species

for species

in Glacier Bay

a subsequent

(# of fish)

trip of the season

For visitors on private vessel permits on their second or later visit during the 2003
season, an estimated 128 parties had people who fished. The percentages of fishing parties
who targeted each species presented in Figure 5.2 and the average targeted catch and targeted
harvest (# of fish) per party by species presented in Table 5.2 were used in the angler
population estimate calculations. Table 5.4 summarizes the 2003 angler population catch and
harvest estimates for licensed anglers who fished in Glacier Bay proper on private vessel
permits during their second or later visit of the season.

No data were available to examine non-response bias for the phone survey. If the captains who participated
in the phone survey differed significantly from the captains who did not participate, this percentage would not
accurately represent the population.

Table 5.4: GLBA Phone Survey

POPULATION CATCH AND HARVEST ESTIMATES FOR LICENSED ANGLERS

ABOARD PRIVATE VESSELS ON SUBSEQUENT VISITS BY SPECIES

Population Estimate for June 1 to

August 31,

2003

Catch

Harvest

Species

(# of fish)

Salmon/trout/char

Halibut

742

390

Other bottom fish1

Other bottom fish includes lingcod, rockfish, salmon shark and dogfish. Halibut are reported
separately.

An estimated 742 halibut, 86 salmonids, and 8 bottom fish were caught, and an estimated 390
halibut, 34 salmonids, and 2 bottom fish were harvested (see Table 5.4). A greater
percentage of halibut were harvested than salmonids (52.2% versus 39.5%, respectively) by
subsequent visit, private vessel angler parties in Glacier Bay proper during the 2003 season
(June 1 through August 31).

6. Total Catch and Harvest Estimates for Private Vessel
Anglers within Glacier Bay Proper

Angler population catch and harvest estimates for the survey period for first trip of
the season (mail questionnaire) and for subsequent trip (phone survey) licensed anglers on
private vessels were summed to estimate total catch and harvest (see Table 6.1). Data on
party size were not collected for the phone survey limiting the comparisons that can be made.
Catch per unit of effort (CPUE) and harvest per unit of effort (HPUE) for each species and
survey are summarized in Table 6.2. Phone survey respondents reported on their party
whereas mail survey respondents reported on their own behavior. Information obtained on
the contact sheet allowed us to determine which mail survey respondents were in the same
party. These data in conjunction with data from the mail survey allowed some party level
comparisons for the mail and phone survey. These comparisons are reported in this chapter
where appropriate.

Table 6.1: GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire and Phone Survey
COMBINED CATCH AND HARVEST ESTIMATES BY SPECIES FOR ANGLERS ABOARD

PRIVATE VESSELS IN GLBA

2003 Total Catch Estimates 2003 Total Harvest Estimates

Mail-back Phone Mail-back Phone

Species survey survey Total survey survey Total

Salmon/trout/char 225 86 311 156 34 190

Halibut 998 742 1740 530 390 920

Other bottom fish1 165 8 173 22 2 24

Other bottom fish includes lingcod, rockfish, salmon shark and dogfish. Halibut are reported separately. Mail-
back survey bottom fish data excludes one respondent of the 2003 mail-back questionnaire who reported
catching 54 bottom fish in 6 hours. Park staff believed these data were suspect and so he/she was excluded.

Table 6.2: GLBA Mail-back Questionnaire and Phone Survey

COMPARISONS OF TARGETED CPUE AND HPUE BY SPECIES

(# of Fish per Rod-Hour)

Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) Harvest per Unit Effort (HPUE)

(# of Fish per Rod-Hour) (# of Fish per Rod-Hour)

Species Mail survey Phone survey Mail survey Phone survey

Salmon/trout/char 0.59 0.96 0.23 0.59

Halibut 0.77 0.39 0.51 0.22

Halibut was the preferred species in both the mail and phone surveys. More parties
targeted halibut than salmonids in the phone survey (Figure 5.2; 89.1% vs. 26.6%,

1 9

respectively) and in the mail survey (78.7% vs. 36.2%, respectively ). Although more
parties in the phone survey than the mail survey targeted halibut, the percent of halibut
caught that was harvested for each group was comparable (Table 6.1; 390/742=52.5% vs.
530/998=53. 1%, respectively). Review of catch (CPUE) and harvest (HPUE) rates for the
two groups however showed that anglers in the phone survey reported lower catch and
harvest rates for halibut than anglers in the mail survey (Table 6.2; 0.51 vs. 0.77, respectively
and 0.22 vs. 0.39, respectively). These results were surprising as the phone survey consisted
of primarily local Alaskan residents who would be expected to exhibit as good or better
fishing success for both halibut and salmon than non-Alaskan U.S. residents who comprised
72.8% of the mail survey respondents (see Figure 2.8).

Salmonids were targeted by more parties in the mail survey than the phone survey
(36.2% vs. 26.6% per Figure 5.2, respectively). Compared to anglers in the mail survey,
anglers in the phone survey exhibited higher catch (0.59 vs. 0.96, respectively) and harvest
(0.23 vs. 0.59, respectively) rates than anglers in the mail survey (see Table 6.2). However,
anglers in the phone survey harvested a lower percentage of salmonids relative to catch than
anglers in the mail survey (Table 6.1; 34/86=39.5% vs. 156/225=69.3%).

12 Information in the contact sheet enabled some mail survey data to be calculated on a per party basis. Thus, the
percentages reported here for parties do not agree with percentages reported earlier in the report that represent
individual respondents (some who were in the same party).

7. Conclusions

This section includes conclusions and recommendations based on the data collected in these
surveys.

Prevalence of Fishing and Importance to Trip

These surveys revealed that the majority of licensed anglers on their first trip of the
season fished. Specifically, 78.8% of "first trip" parties reported members with Alaska
fishing licenses and 66.7% of these first trip licensed anglers fished. Despite the large
number of respondents fishing, further data suggested that fishing was not a primary activity
for many of these visitors during their trips. First, first trip respondents spent an average of
4.5 days in Glacier Bay proper, and those who fished averaged 5.0 hours of fishing effort per
trip — a relatively small proportion of total trip time. Second, 25.6% of respondents who
fished and 23.8% of respondents who did not fish commented that fishing was only part of
their trip's activity and/or experience. Third, most of respondent's fishing effort occurred in
the central bay and central west arm where visitors would travel for sightseeing as well.
These findings suggest that for many of these visitors fishing was not the primary motivation
for their visit and was incidental to their trip.

For parties on subsequent trips, fishing was more prevalent with 79.1% of these parties
having at least one member who fished. On average the total number of hours at least one
person in the party fished was 5.3 per trip, and most of these trips were one day long. Thus,
fishing comprised a much larger component of each trip and was a higher priority for people
on subsequent trips than for those on a first trip of the season. Because people who take
multiple trips to Glacier Bay proper in a season are typically local residents (who may or may
not have non-local visitors with them), it was reasonable that fishing comprised a greater
component of the total trip experience. Thus, fishing as a component of private boater
experience appears to be substantially more important to local than to non-resident visitors.

Fishing Catch and Harvest

Halibut was overwhelming the primary species targeted, caught, and harvested by anglers
aboard private vessels on first or subsequent trips. Salmon was a distant second followed by

other bottom fish. An estimated total of 1,740 halibut and 311 salmonids were harvested in
2003. Furthermore, for licensed anglers on first-trip of the season, private vessels in Glacier
Bay proper observed halibut CPUE was 0.77 fish/rod-hr and observed halibut HPUE was
0.51 fish/rod-hr. This magnitude of recreational harvest was comparable to the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game's mail survey estimate of 1,400-2,200 halibut and over 500
salmon for this same area (see

http://www.sf.adfg.state.a.us/Statewide/ParticipationAndHarvest/main.cfm). Although
recreational halibut harvest within Glacier Bay proper is not inconsequential, it likely
represents a relatively small portion of total harvest in comparison with Glacier Bay proper
commercial harvest. An estimated 248,000-360,000 lbs. of halibut was harvested annually
between 1998 and 2002 (International Pacific halibut Commission unpublished data).
Recreational anglers most likely harvest less than 18% of total halibut harvest assuming an
average net weight of 30 lbs. for recreationally harvested halibut.

Recreational harvest, in combination with commercial harvest, can cause local
depletion effects on halibut. The number of commercial halibut fishermen within Glacier Bay
proper are limited by federal regulation. Furthermore, the commercial halibut fishery within
Glacier Bay will eventually cease (in ca. 40 y) as qualifying permit holders retire or stop
fishing under current "sunset" regulations.

It should be noted that interpreting one year's data as representative of an average or
typical year may be misleading. Considerable variability in catch and harvest was observed
between the pre-test in 2002 and the survey in 2003. Similar, year-to-year variability was
also observed in ADFG angler survey results for the Glacier Bay statistical area. Obtaining
estimates for additional years would provide information about the degree of year-to-year
variability for licensed anglers who enter on private vessel permits.

The estimates derived in this research were based on a voluntary, self-reported
survey. One concern of this approach is that none of the self-report data were validated by
independent observation. Although there was no reason to suspect intentional misreporting,
greater assurance in the values would result from validating the data. A second concern of
this approach is that the accuracy of the estimates depends on all visitors who fish being
contacted and participating. Although it was initially believed that the vast majority of
licensed anglers would enter the VIS, this was not the case. Because the research design did

not directly collect data to address these issues, there was no way to determine who was
missed and if they differed in significant ways from people contacted. If these people differ
from those contacted, the estimates of fishing catch and harvest may not be representative.
Future research can be designed to address these issues and still enable visitor survey
methodology to collect these data.

Summary

The current study provided information about licensed anglers aboard private vessels in
Glacier Bay proper during their visit including general demographics and fishing behavior.
These data revealed that for many visitors fishing was incidental to their trip. Overall,
estimates of harvest and catch for the different species revealed that halibut were most often
targeted, caught, and harvested. A total of 1,740 halibut and 311 salmonids were estimated
to be harvested from June 1 through August 31 of 2003 suggesting little pressure on these
fisheries from this group of users compared to commercial harvest and halibut harvest
outside of the bay. The use of survey methodology, although with some limitations, was a
viable means for obtaining these data.

References

Gasper, J. R. (2004). The Sportfishery in the Icy Strait/Glacier Bay/Cross Sound region of
Southeastern Alaska: An Analysis of Charter Guide-Client Power Interactions and
Sportfishing Catch, Harvest, and Effort. Unpublished master's thesis, University of
Washington, Seattle.

Gasper, J. R., Gallucci, V. F., Miller, M.M., Soiseth, C, Johnson, D., & Swanson, J. (2005)
Sport fishery information for managing Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve vol. I:
Catch, Harvest, and Effort for the Gustavus and Elfin Cove Sportfishery in the Cross Sound
and Icy Strait Region of Northern Southeast Alaska during 2003 (NPS D-132). Tech Rep.
NPS/PWRUW/NRTR-2005-01. National Park Service, Pacific West Region, Protected Area
Social Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle.

Pollock, K.H., Hoenig, J.M., Jones, CM., Robson, D.S. & Greene, C.J. (1997). Catch rate
estimation for roving and access point surveys. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 17, 1 1-19.

Romberg, B. (2003). Factors affecting recreational fishing participation among Alaska
residents. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of
Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-
Associated Recreation.

Walker, R. J., Olnes, C, Sundet, K., Howe, A. L., & Bingham, A. E. (2001). Participation,
catch, and harvest in Alaska sport fisheries during 2000. Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Fishery Data Series No. 03-05, Anchorage.

Appendix A: Contact Sheet and Mail Questionnaire

The contact sheet is presented first followed by the mail questionnaire. The page numbering
for these questionnaires reflects the actual page numbering (or lack thereof) that was on the
original survey questionnaire rather than the corresponding page number of this report.

Packet # OMB Approval #1024-0224 (NPS#03-023)

Expires: 03/31/2004

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve Boater Survey
Contact Sheet

ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY VISITORS WITH ALASKA FISHING LICENSES
If you do not have an Alaska Fishing License, please return this survey packet now.

Thank you for participating in this survey. Please fill out this sheet immediately and return it to the person who
gave you the survey packet.

1. Are you the permit holder for your party? (Check one box.)

□ YES-^ What is your permit number?

□ NO-> Who is the Permit Holder? (Enter name of permit holder)
NAME OF PERMIT HOLDER

First Last

2. How many people are in your boating party?

3. How many people in your boating party have Alaska fishing licenses?

4. What is the make-up of your group today? (Check one box.)

□ INDIVIDUAL □ FAMILY □ FRIENDS □ FAMILY AND FRIENDS

□ OTHER (please specify)

5. Are there any persons under age 1 8 in your party today? (Check one box.)

□ NO

□ YES - What are the ages of the persons under age 1 8 in your group:

6. Are you: □ FEMALE □ MALE

7. What year were you born? 19

8. What is your home Zip Code? (If you live outside of the United States, please write the name of your country. )

9. Please provide the following information so that we can follow-up with the survey, if need be. This
information will be confidential. It will be used only for this survey and will be destroyed after the project
is completed.

Name

Mailing Address

(Number and Street)

(City, State, Zip Code, Country)

OMB Approval #1024-0224 (NPSW3-023)
Expires: 03/31/2004

Glacier Bay National Park
Boating Survey

Mail to:

GBNP Boater Survey

Protected Area Social Research Unit

CFR Box 352100

University of Washington

Seattle, WA 98195-2100

PRIVACY ACT and PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT statement:

16 U.S.C. 1a-7 authorizes collection of this information. This information will be used by park managers to
better serve the public. Response to this request is voluntary. No action may be taken against you for
refusing to supply the information requested. Your name has been requested for follow-up mailing purposes
only. When analysis of the questionnaire is completed, all name and address files will be destroyed. Thus
the permanent data will be anonymous. Please do not put your name or that of any member of your group on
the questionnaire. Data collected through visitor surveys may be disclosed to the Department of Justice when
relevant to litigation or anticipated litigation, or to appropriate Federal, State, local or foreign agencies
responsible for investigating or prosecuting a violation of law. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

Burden estimate statement:

Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 15 minutes per respondent. Direct comments
regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this form to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of OMB, Attention Desk Officer for the Interior Department, Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, D.C. 20503; and to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, WASO Administrative Program
Center, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240.

IN REPLY REFER TO:

United States Department of the Interior

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve

P.O.Box 140

Gustavus, Alaska 99826-0140

Summer 2003

Dear Park Visitor:

Many people visit Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve each year. As part of the park's
planning and management process, information is needed about angler experiences and
activities. Toward this end, I have asked the School of Marine Affairs and the Protected Area
Social Research Unit at the University of Washington to conduct a survey of people with
Alaska fishing licenses that took a boat trip in Glacier Bay.

During a recent boating trip in Glacier Bay National Park waters, you provided your name and
address in order to participate in this survey. Thank you for agreeing to complete this survey.

In order that the results be truly representative of all people with Alaska fishing licenses who
took a boat trip in Glacier Bay, it is important that you take the time to complete this mail
questionnaire as instructed. When you have finished, please place the questionnaire in the
stamped, pre-addressed envelope and drop it in the mail.

An identification number is included on the questionnaire so we may check your name off the
mailing list when the questionnaire is returned. Your name will not be placed on the
questionnaire or included in the final database.

We greatly appreciate your cooperation in this survey. I hope that you enjoyed your visit.

Sincerely,

Tomie Lee
Superintendent

This survey packet contains:

1 Glacier Bay Boating Survey Booklet
1 map of Glacier Bay
1 pencil

Thank you for participating in this study of boaters in Glacier Bay. The park is interested in learning more about
fishing behavior of people who boat in Glacier Bay. It is equally important for the park to learn that you did
not fish as it is for them to learn that you did. Please take the time to complete the survey even if you did
not fish.

At first glance, this survey booklet may appear somewhat long because it has been designed for people who spend
the maximum number of days of their permit in the park. Many of you will be instructed to skip several pages. It
is estimated on average that people will spend a total of 15 minutes completing the booklet.

The different study components are listed below with their average estimated time to complete.

1) A background information questionnaire (estimated time to complete: less than 2 minutes),

2) Daily fishing reports (estimated time to complete: 3 minutes per day), and

3) A post-trip questionnaire (estimated time to complete: less than 2 minutes).

Please complete the Background Information Questionnaire at the start of your boat trip in Glacier Bay.

Please read the instructions for the Daily Fishing Reports and fill out the report form each evening during
your trip.

When you leave Glacier Bay at the end of your trip, please review the instructions for the post-trip
questionnaire and complete it (see page 13).

Place your completed questionnaire in the stamped pre-addressed return envelope and drop in the mail.

All boaters are being asked to complete this survey once. Boaters who take additional trips to Glacier Bay this
summer and are the permit holders for those trips will be called and asked to provide information about those
trips.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE

To be completed at the start of your boating trip in Glacier Bay

Important Instructions:

a) It is important that you complete the survey based on your own personal experience and activities, and not
for your boating party as a whole.

b) While filling out this questionnaire, please remember that all questions ask about the boating trip into
Glacier Bay National Park when you were contacted for this survey.

c) For the purposes of this survey, we are interested in the time you spent in Glacier Bay north of the line
drawn between Point Carolus and Point Gustavus (see map).

d) Please be sure to read each question carefully before answering it.

1 . When did you first enter Glacier Bay proper during the boat trip in which you were contacted for this survey?

MONTH DAY TIME am or pm

(Please circle one)

2. INCLUDING THIS BOAT TRIP DURPNG WHICH YOU WERE CONTACTED, how many fishing trips
have you taken in Glacier Bay in the last three years? (Circle one letter)

a No fishing trips

b 1 fishing trip

c 2 to 4 fishing trips

d 5 to 9 fishing trips

e 1 0 or more fishing trips

3. Do you have an Alaska Fishing license? (Circle one number.)

1 NO-> GO TO QUESTION 5

2 YES-^ Which type of Alaska Fishing license do you have? (Circle one number.)

1 Resident fishing license

2 Non-resident fishing license

4. How important is it for you to take home some of the fish you catch during this trip? (Circle one number)
I 1

12 3 4 5 6 7

Not at all Extremely

important important

5. How serious are you about sport fishing, in general? (Circle one number)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Not at all Very

serious serious

6. What is your home Zip Code? (Enter country if you reside outside the United States.)

7. Are you: (Circle one number.)

1 Female

2 Male

8. What year were you born?

DAILY FISHING REPORTS

EXAMPLE (as shown in table on next page)

On day 1 you fished so you circle "Yes" to answer "Did you fish today?"

Fishing Locations: Suppose on Day 1 you fished in Whidbey Passage and then in Glacier Bay just north of Drake
Island. By looking at the enclosed map, you find that Whidbey Passage is in Area 13 so you record "13" for "Area
#for Is' location" and that the second place you fished in Area 12 so you record "12" for "Area #for 2' location".

Kept & Released: Your fishing efforts in Whidbey Passage resulted in you keeping I and releasing 2 Halibut.
Although you also fished for Chinook, all you caught was 1 salmon that you knew wasn 't a Chinook so you
released it. Thus, you would record a "1 " in the "# fish kept" column on the Halibut row, a "2 " in the "# fish
released" column on the Halibut row, and a "1" in the "#fish released" column on the unidentified salmon row.
Because you did not catch any Chinook salmon (which is what you were targeting), you would record a "0" in the
"#fish kept" and in the "# fish released" columns for the Chinook row. At your second fishing location, you kept
2 Chinook and released all the other salmon because you couldn 't identify them and now, can 7 remember how
many fish you released. You would record a "2" in the " # fish kept" column and a "0" in the "# fish released"
column for Chinook, and a "DK" in the "ttfish released" column for unidentified salmon.

EXAMPLE REPORT

DAY1: Did you fish today? (Circle one) (YeT) No

1st Fishing Location

2nd Fishing Location

3rd Fishing Location

4th Fishing Location

Area # for 1 st location

Area # for 2nd location

Area # for 3rd location

Area # for 4 location

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

#fish
kept

#fish
released

#fish
kept

#fish
released

#fish
kept

#fish
released

#fish
kept

#fish
released

Halibut

King Salmon

(Chinook)

Sockeye
Salmon (Red)

Coho Salmon
(Silver)

Chum Salmon
(Dog)

Pink Salmon
(Humpy)

Unidentified
Salmon

Rainbow/
Steelhead

Dolly
Varden/Char

Cutthroat
Trout

Lingcod

Rockfish

Salmon Shark

Dogfish (sand
or mud shark

DAY 1: Did you fish today? (Circle one) Yes

(See instructions on page 2 and the enclosed map for area numbers)
Remember:

• Record hours to the nearest quarter of an hour.

• Only write "DK" if you cannot provide an estimate.

• If you did not catch a species you were targeting, record "0" for # kept and # released for that species.

1st Fishing Location

2nd Fishing Location

3rd Fishing Location

4th Fishing Location

Area # for 1 sl location

Area # for 2nd location

Area # for 3rd location

Area # for 4th location

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout.Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

#fish
kept

#fish
released

#fish
kept

#fish
released

#fish
kept

#fish
released

#fish
kept

# fish
released

Halibut

King Salmon
(Chinook)

Sockeye
Salmon (Red)

Coho Salmon
(Silver)

Chum Salmon
(Dog)

Pink Salmon
(Humpy)

Unidentified
Salmon

Rainbow/
Steelhead

Dolly
Varden/Char

Cutthroat
Trout

Lingcod

Rockfish

Salmon Shark

Dogfish (sand
or mud shark

If this is the last day of your visit, please complete the post-trip questionnaire on page 13.

DAY 2: Did you fish today? (Circle one) Yes

(See instructions on page 2 and the enclosed map for area numbers)
Remember:

• Record hours to the nearest quarter of an hour.

• Only write "DK" if you cannot provide an estimate.

• If you did not catch a species you were targeting, record "0" for # kept and # released for that species.

1st Fishing Location

2nd Fishing Location

3rd Fishing Location

4,h Fishing Location

Area # for 1st location

Area # for 2n location

Area # for 3rd location

Area # for 4th location

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished

Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

#fish
kept

#fish
released

# fish
kept

#fish
released

#fish
kept

#fish
released

#fish
kept

#fish
released

Halibut

King Salmon
(Chinook)

Sockeye
Salmon (Red)

Coho Salmon

(Silver)

Chum Salmon
(Dog)

Pink Salmon
(Humpy)

Unidentified
Salmon

Rainbow/
Steelhead

Dolly
Varden/Char

Cutthroat
Trout

Lingcod

Rockfish

Salmon Shark

Dogfish (sand
or mud shark

If this is the last day of your visit, please complete the post-trip questionnaire on page 13.

DAY 3: Did you fish today? (Circle one) Yes

(See instructions on page 2 and the enclosed map for area numbers)
Remember:

• Record hours to the nearest quarter of an hour.

• Only write "DK" if you cannot provide an estimate.

• If you did not catch a species you were targeting, record "0" for # kept and # released for that species.

1st Fishing Location

2nd Fishing Location

3rd Fishing Location

4th Fishing Location

Area # for 1 st location

Area # for 2nd location

Area # for 3rd location

Area # for 4th location

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

#fish
kept

#fish
released

# fish
kept

#fish
released

#fish
kept

#fish
released

#fish
kept

#fish
released

Halibut

King Salmon
(Chinook)

Sockeye
Salmon (Red)

Coho Salmon
(Silver)

Chum Salmon
(Dog)

Pink Salmon
(Humpy)

Unidentified
Salmon

Rainbow/
Steel head

Dolly
Varden/Char

Cutthroat
Trout

Lingcod

Rockfish

Salmon Shark

Dogfish (sand
or mud shark

If this is the last day of your visit, please complete the post-trip questionnaire on page 13.

DAY 4: Did you fish today? (Circle one) Yes

(See instructions on page 2 and the enclosed map for area numbers)
Remember:

• Record hours to the nearest quarter of an hour.

• Only write "DK" if you cannot provide an estimate.

• If you did not catch a species you were targeting, record "0" for # kept and # released for that species.

Is' Fishing Location

2nd Fishing Location

3rd Fishing Location

4th Fishing Location

Area # for 1 st location

Area # for 2nd location

Area # for 3rd location

Area # for 4th location

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# fish
kept

#fish
released

# fish
kept

#fish
released

#fish
kept

#fish
released

#fish
kept

#fish
released

Halibut

King Salmon
(Chinook)

Sockeye
Salmon (Red)

Coho Salmon
(Silver)

Chum Salmon
(Dog)

Pink Salmon
(Humpy)

Unidentified
Salmon

Rainbow/
Steel head

Dolly
Varden/Char

Cutthroat
Trout

Lingcod

Rockfish

Salmon Shark

Dogfish (sand
or mud shark

If this is the last day of your visit, please complete the post-trip questionnaire on page 13.

DAY 5: Did you fish today? (Circle one) Yes

(See instructions on page 2 and the enclosed map for area numbers)
Remember:

• Record hours to the nearest quarter of an hour.

• Only write "DK" if you cannot provide an estimate.

• If you did not catch a species you were targeting, record "0" for # kept and # released for tliat species.

1st Fishing Location

2nd Fishing Location

3rd Fishing Location

4th Fishing Location

Area # for 1 st location

Area # for 2nd location

Area # for 3rd location

Area # for 4th location

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

#fish
kept

#fish
released

#fish
kept

#fish
released

#fish
kept

#fish
released

#fish
kept

#fish
released

Halibut

King Salmon
(Chinook)

Sockeye
Salmon (Red)

Coho Salmon
(Silver)

Chum Salmon
(Dog)

Pink Salmon
(Humpy)

Unidentified
Salmon

Rainbow/
Steelhead

Dolly
Varden/Char

Cutthroat
Trout

Lingcod

Rockfish

Salmon Shark

Dogfish (sand
or mud shark

If this is the last day of your visit, please complete the post-trip questionnaire on page 13.

DAY 6: Did you fish today? (Circle one) Yes

(See instructions on page 2 and the enclosed map for area numbers)
Remember:

• Record hours to the nearest quarter of an hour.

• Only write "DK" if you cannot provide an estimate.

• If you did not catch a species you were targeting, record "0" for # kept and # released for that species.

1st Fishing Location

2nd Fishing Location

3rd Fishing Location

4th Fishing Location

Area # for 1 st location

Area # for 2nd location

Area # for 3rd location

Area # for 4th location

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# fish
kept

#fish
released

#fish
kept

#fish
released

#fish
kept

#fish
released

#fish
kept

#fish
released

Halibut

King Salmon
(Chinook)

Sockeye
Salmon (Red)

Coho Salmon
(Silver)

Chum Salmon
(Dog)

Pink Salmon
(Humpy)

Unidentified
Salmon

Rainbow/
Steelhead

Dolly
Varden/Char

Cutthroat
Trout

Lingcod

Rockfish

Salmon Shark

Dogfish (sand
or mud shark

If this is the last day of your visit, please complete the post-trip questionnaire on page 13.

DAY 7: Did you fish today? (Circle one) Yes

(See instructions on page 2 and the enclosed map for area numbers)
Remember:

• Record hours to the nearest quarter of an hour.

• Only write "DK" if you cannot provide an estimate.

• If you did not catch a species you were targeting, record "0" for # kept and # released for that species.

1st Fishing Location

2nd Fishing Location

3rd Fishing Location

4th Fishing Location

Area # for 1 st location

Area # for 2nd location

Area # for 3rd location

Area # for 4th location

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

# Hours Fished
Halibut

Salmon,Trout,Char
Other Bottom fish

#fish
kept

#fish
released

#fish
kept

#fish
released

# fish
kept

# fish
released

#fish
kept

#fish
released

Halibut

King Salmon
(Chinook)

Sockeye
Salmon (Red)

Coho Salmon
(Silver)

Chum Salmon
(Dog)

Pink Salmon
(Humpy)

Unidentified
Salmon

Rainbow/
Steelhead

Dolly
Varden/Char

Cutthroat
Trout

Lingcod

Rockfish

Salmon Shark

Dogfish (sand
or mud shark

Please complete the post-trip questionnaire on next page.

POST-TRIP QUESTIONNAIRE

Please do not complete until after you leave Glacier Bay at the end of your trip.

Important Instructions:

a) It is important that you complete the survey based on your own personal experience and activities, and not
for your boating party as a whole.

b) While filling out this questionnaire, please remember that all questions ask about the boating trip into
Glacier Bay National Park when you were contacted for this survey.

c) For the purposes of this survey, we are interested in the time you spent in Glacier Bay north of the line
drawn between Point Carolus and Point Gustavus (see map).

d) Please be sure to read each question carefully before answering it.

1 . On the boat trip during which you were contacted, how long did you spend in Glacier Bay? (If you did not
stay overnight in the area write "0" for number of DAYS. If you do not remember how long you were in
Glacier Bay proper, circle "B").

DAYS

HOURS

B. DON'T REMEMBER

2. During the boat trip in which you were contacted, on how many of the days that you were in Glacier Bay did
you personally fish?

NUMBER OF DAYS FISHED IN GLACIER BAY PROPER

3. How many people in your boating party fished in Glacier Bay proper during the trip in which you were
contacted?

NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN BOATING PARTY WHO FISHED

4. Which of the following statements best describes your level of fishing experience? (Circle one number)

1 I have never fished.

2 This trip was the first time I fished.

3 I have fished before this trip but do not go fishing every year.

4 I usually go fishing one or two days a year.

5 I usually go fishing 3 to 1 0 days a year.

6 I usually go fishing 11 to 20 days a year.

7 I usually go fishing more than 20 days a year.

5. Based on your boat trip in Glacier Bay, how willing would you be to recommend that others fish in Glacier
Bay?

Not at all Extremely

willing willing

■\

Please explain:

6. Please use the space below to write any other comments you care to make about the positive or negative
aspects of your trip to Glacier Bay National Park or about National Park Service management of the area.

PLEASE PLACE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE INTO THE STAMPED, ADDRESSED RETURN

ENVELOPE AND DROP IN THE MAIL.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS SURVEY

Appendix B: Phone Survey Script

Local boaters are allowed up to three one-day permits during one summer season. Each year
permit holders are required to attend a Visitor Information Station (VIS) training program
one time, therefore local boaters who only stop at the VIS when entering the park on their
first permit can not be contacted directly during their second and third visits. As boaters are
required to radio the park upon entry to Glacier Bay, the park can provide us with names and
contact information for the permit holders to allow us to contact them by phone within a
couple days of completing their visit.

The phone interview introduces the survey, asks about fishing location, effort, and harvest
information, and gathers some descriptive information about the fishing party.
In the following interview schedule, the text that will be read by the interviewer is presented
in bold. Responses will be recorded on a mark sense form supplied by Alaska Department of
Fish and Game.

Pre-interview information:

Date/Time (interviewer recorded)

Interviewer conducting interview (interviewer recorded)

Introduction and request to participate.

Hello, my name is . I'm working with the University of Washington's

School of Marine affairs. In conjunction with Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve,
we are conducting a survey of people with Alaska fishing licenses that took a boat trip
in Glacier Bay.

You most likely have already been asked to complete a mail questionnaire about your
first visit in the Park, and we appreciate you taking the time to do so. In order for our
survey results to represent all trips, we'd like to ask you a few questions about your trip

when you entered the bay on . The Paperwork Reduction Act requires

approval of all federal government surveys by the Office of Management and Budget.
This survey has been approved under this Act. The Office of Management and Budget
control number and expiration date is available at your request as well as any
additional information about this survey and its approval.* The questions I would like
to ask will only take about 10 minutes to complete. All of your answers are voluntary
and confidential. Would you be willing to participate?

Ill

*Additional Information Provided upon Request. This information will be provided to respondents

who ask for it.

OMB Approval number: 1024-0224(NPS#03-023)

Expiration Date: 03/31/2004

Person Collecting and Analyzing Information: Jane Swanson

PNW CESU

CFR Box 352100

University of Washington

Seattle, W A 98195-2100

16 U.S.C. la-7 authorizes collection of this information. This information will be used by park
managers to better serve the public. Response to this request is voluntary. No action may be taken
against you for refusing to supply the information requested. The permanent data will not have your
telephone number recorded. The data collected through surveys may be disclosed to the Department
of Justice when relevant to litigation or anticipated litigation, or to appropriate Federal, State, local, or
foreign agencies responsible for investigating or prosecuting a violation of the law.

You may direct comments on the number of minutes required to respond, or on any other aspect of
this survey to:

Information Collection Clearance Officer,
WASO Administrative Program Center
National Park Service
1 849 C Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20240

If no, thank them for their time.

If yes, proceed with interview.

For the purposes of this survey, the trip that you are being asked about is the trip you

entered the bay on . Also, when we say Glacier Bay we are referring to all

water north of the line drawn from Pt. Gustavus to Pt. Carolus including rivers and
streams that flow into the bay. Finally, crabbing is not considered fishing for this survey.

1 . Including yourself, how many people were in your boating party during your trip on

NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN BOATING PARTY

2. Including yourself, how many people in your boating party fished in Glacier Bay
during your trip on ?

NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN BOATING PARTY WHO FISHED

112

3. How many days did you spend in Glacier Bay on this permit?

DAYS

4. On how many of the days you spent in Glacier Bay on this permit did someone on
your boat fish?

DAYS

Ask the following set of questions for each day respondents fished in Glacier Bay?

5. Where did your boating party fish on your party's first day of fishing? Use pre-
established codes from creel census statistical areas. See attached manual for examples
of codes for GBNP.

6. Out of the following species, which ones were you targeting on the <insert day of

fishing e.g., first> day at <insert location>? Ask this question for each location fished on
this day.

1 Salmon/trout

2 Bottom fish

3 Halibut

7. How much time were you actively fishing at each location for <insert species
respondents targeted> on the <insert day of fishing e.g., first> day? Ask this question for
each of the species respondents indicated they targeted.

8. How many rods were being fished on your boat for <insert species respondents
targeted> at each location on the <insert day of fishing e.g., first> day? Ask this
question for each of the species respondents indicated they targeted.

9. How many <insert species name> were kept by your fishing party at each location

the <insert day of fishing e.g., first> day?

10. How many <insert species name> were released by your fishing party at each
location the <insert day of fishing e.g., first> day?

Repeat questions 5 through 10 for each day respondent fished.

That completes our survey. Thank you for participating. Have a good day.

113

114

Appendix C: Map of Glacier Bay

Glacier Bay National Park

Boater Survey Mao

Bay Area Numbers are BOLDED, e.g., 10

Stream Identification Numbers are in italics and located near each river, creek, or stream, e.g., 35. Streams
with multiple forks have one number for all forks.

12 *_,

ft *37;-. -r..

.larfonhu.

-I, " \ 52

Sehre^V**.. V,

Srurgrasfkl*

31 *11

C<>

r-S 2>y-?«v *c_ ji* SK1* ""•", .-- •• i.v',

30 $1 2 J '..•••-"" /

n«>"

r^; S

;>*>•

BartleH.

..Cove (*, I Visitor Information

LEGEND

Bay area boundary lines

\f — Streams, Rivers, Creeks

Park Water Boundary

Glacier Bay National Park Land

Map Location

National Pari* Service

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve

Natural Resources

Bay Area Numbers are BOLDED, e.g., 10

Stream Identification Numbers are in italics and located near each river, creek, or stream, e.g., 35. Streams with
multiple forks have one number for all forks.

115

116

Appendix D: How to Use This Report

This section is a brief introduction to the basic statistical methods included in this
report. It defines some key terms and illustrates the ways in which the statistical tables and
graphs have been prepared.

The main tool used in statistics is data— those observations and measurements that are
recorded in a study. As commonly used, the word "data" is plural. For example, all of the
visitors' ages comprise data. A single unit of data — for example, the age of a single visitor —
is a datum.

Data are collected about relevant variables. A variable is simply a characteristic or trait
of interest that can vary. For example, the ages of visitors, their party characteristics, or their
satisfaction with fishing at Glacier Bay can all be considered variables: Each of these traits
or characteristics varies from person to person in the study sample.

Variables can be of two types: Qualitative variables are expressed in terms of categories,
such as whether or not a visitor has been to the Visitor Center. Quantitative variables are
expressed in terms of numbers, such as the size of a visitor party.

Discrete quantitative variables have distinct and separate units. There are no values
possible between the units of a discrete variable. For example, the number of visitors in a
single party consists only of whole numbers of people. One cannot talk about a party of 1
1/2 persons.

Figure D. 1 illustrates these concepts.

117

FIGURE D.1 . FLOW CHART OF STATISTICAL CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY

Data are

measurements or

observations of a variable

A Variable is

a characteristic or trait that

can vary

can be either

Qualitative variables can

only be described with

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Sportfishery Information for Managing Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve: Volume 2, A Survey of Fishing License Holders Entering Glacier Bay on Private Vessel Permits"

See other formats